Kill Process

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true/readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context: SIGTERM is graceful by default, SIGKILL forces termination, and the operation runs via sudo (elevated privileges). These are meaningful operational facts beyond the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and default behavior, then the escalation path and the privilege note. No filler.

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?

For a two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover the essentials: what it does, the default and forced signals, and that it runs with sudo. It stops short of warning about irreversibility or describing the return, but it is largely complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic meaning not present in the schema by characterizing SIGTERM as graceful and SIGKILL as forcing termination, helping the agent choose a signal value rather than just a type.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: sending a signal to a process identified by PID. This is clearly distinguishable from the read-only process siblings (list_processes, get_process, get_top_processes), though it never names them explicitly.

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?

It implies when to use SIGTERM vs SIGKILL, but that is signal selection rather than tool selection. There is no explicit guidance on when to reach for kill_process over the adjacent process-inspection tools.

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