kill_process_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: "Force-kill" correctly signals a destructive, irreversible mutation and "--allow-write" discloses the permission gate, which is genuinely useful. However it omits failure behavior, whether protected/system processes can be targeted, and any confirmation or rate-limit constraints.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the permission prerequisite attached immediately after. Nothing can be trimmed without losing information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is simple (one required param). Still, for a destructive operation backed by no annotations, the description should say what happens on a bad PID or denied permission — that is the notable gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate: "by PID" clarifies that the single pid parameter is a process identifier, adding meaning beyond the bare string field. It still leaves format details unspecified — whether a string PID, an image name, or a numeric literal is accepted.

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 and resource ("Force-kill a process") plus the selector ("by PID"), which is unambiguous against siblings like list_windows_processes and service_action_tool. It does not explicitly name a sibling as the alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives one hard prerequisite ("Requires --allow-write") but no guidance on when termination is appropriate versus alternatives such as service_action_tool for stopping services, and no warning about the irreversible nature of force-killing. Usage is only implied.

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