cleanup_processes

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true. The description adds specific behavioral details: without force shows status, with force terminates all tracked processes (netcoredbg + debuggees) with no risk of killing unrelated processes. This goes beyond the annotation.

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 concise (a few sentences) and well-structured: it starts with a summary, explains both modes, includes a usage tip, and explicitly lists the argument. 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 tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers behavior and safety. However, it does not specify the exact return format (e.g., whether status output is a list or text). This minor gap prevents a 5.

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?

The input schema has no description for the 'force' parameter (0% coverage). The description fully explains its semantics: 'If True, terminate all tracked processes. If False, just show status.' This completely compensates for the missing schema description.

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 tool's purpose: 'View or terminate tracked debug processes.' It distinguishes between two modes (with and without force) and explicitly contrasts with manual taskkill, making the intent unambiguous.

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 advises using this tool instead of manual taskkill and explains when to use force (terminate) vs. not (status view). It does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives like terminate_debug, but the usage context is clear.

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