kill_process

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Kills a process' without disclosing consequences such as irreversibility, potential data loss, permission requirements, or behavior when both pid and name are supplied. This is a destructive action, but the description offers no warnings or side-effect details.

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?

Single sentence, no filler, front-loaded with the action. However, it omits critical usage and behavioral details, making it slightly under-sized for a destructive tool.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return values, error cases, and edge conditions, but it is silent on these. With two optional parameters, it does not clarify what happens if neither is given.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a basic description, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by PID or name' confirms either can be used but adds no semantics about precedence, wildcard matching, or behavior when both are provided.

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?

Specific verb 'kills' with resource 'process' and scope 'by PID or name' clearly differentiates from sibling tools like restart_service and get_process_list. The description conveys the exact action and the two alternative input methods without ambiguity.

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 vs alternatives like restart_service. The description provides no context for selection or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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