airmon_check_kill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions killing specific processes but lacks details on side effects (e.g., loss of network connectivity), whether it offers warnings, or if it checks for running processes before killing.

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?

The description is a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it misses contextual cues like requiring root privileges, the need to run before starting monitor mode, and potential impact on the system. These omissions reduce completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the description correctly indicates no inputs are needed. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adequately covers the tool's operation without needing parameter details.

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 clearly states the verb 'Kill' and the resource 'processes that might interfere with monitor mode', listing examples (NetworkManager, wpa_supplicant). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like airmon_start or airmon_check.

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 implies usage when preparing monitor mode but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., root privileges) or ordering relative to siblings like airmon_start.

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