nero_kill

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It explicitly mentions that conversation history and context are permanently destroyed, which is a critical behavioral trait. However, it omits other potential details like authorization requirements or confirmation steps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short, efficient sentences with no wasted words. The action and primary effect are front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple nature of a 'kill' command with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: action, target, and consequence. Minor omissions like success/failure handling are acceptable for this level of complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the 'agent' parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'terminate' and resource 'named agent', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like nero_status or nero_spawn. It also adds the consequence of permanent destruction, further clarifying its destructive nature.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implicitly states usage for ending an agent but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it differentiate from alternatives like nero_reset. It is adequate but lacks comparative context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.