pipeline_kill

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

Discloses important behavioral traits: sets a stop event for clean loop exit and kills all Docker containers. With no annotations, this bears the full burden of transparency and does so adequately, though it lacks detail on side effects like irreversible data loss.

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?

Concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is structured but embedded in the description, making it slightly less clean. However, every sentence adds value.

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 action (kill) and availability of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential behavior and parameter. It does not need to explain return values.

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?

Only one parameter (run_id) with 0% schema coverage. The description adds meaning by stating 'The pipeline run ID to kill,' clarifying the purpose beyond the schema's type and title.

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 action ('Kill') and the resource ('a running pipeline and all its Docker containers'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like pipeline_status or pipeline_artifacts.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it or provide context for decision-making among related pipeline tools.

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