process_cleanup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses destructive behavior ('Remove... all its data') and the status constraint, but does not mention error handling, reversibility, or consequences of calling on non-eligible processes, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single sentence, efficient and free of redundancy. It conveys purpose and eligibility without unnecessary details.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage constraint. It could be more complete by specifying outcomes for invalid calls, but overall it is adequate and not misleading.

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 fully describes the 'id' parameter (100% coverage), and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Remove a terminated process and all its data'), with a specific resource and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like process_kill and process_clear by focusing on terminated processes and their data cleanup.

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 provides an explicit eligibility condition ('Only allowed for processes with status 'exited' or 'killed''), giving clear when-to-use context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or discuss when not to use, but the constraint implicitly guides usage among sibling tools.

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