process_signal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses important behavioral details: PTY processes only support SIGTERM, SIGKILL, and CTRL_C_EVENT, and other signals are 'rejected with an error.' It also gives a workaround for graceful interrupts. However, it does not mention what happens on a successful signal send (e.g., return value) or state that sending a signal like SIGKILL is destructive, though that is inherent to the tool.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, but the long list of signal names makes it somewhat bulky. However, every element serves a purpose: the signal list is a valuable reference not fully covered by the schema. The additional sentences about PTY limitations and process_write are concise and actionable. It could be improved by shortening the signal list (e.g., referencing a standard set) but remains appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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's complexity (signal handling, PTY-specific behavior) and absence of an output schema, the description addresses the key contextual points: supported signals, error behavior for unsupported signals, and an alternative for graceful interrupts. It does not explain the return format on success, but that is less critical for this type of tool. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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. The description adds value by enumerating all acceptable signal names in its 'Available signals' list, which the schema only exemplifies ('e.g., SIGTERM, SIGKILL, SIGINT'). It also clarifies PTY-specific signal restrictions, complementing the schema's note about signal numbers. This goes beyond the schema's provided details, justifying a 4.

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: 'Send a signal to a process by name or number.' It lists available signals, which distinguishes it from the more specific process_kill sibling, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools. The phrase 'by name or number' is slightly ambiguous—it could refer to the process or the signal—but the context and following signal list resolve it.

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 explicit usage guidance: it specifies which signals are supported for PTY processes and that others are rejected, and it explicitly recommends process_write as an alternative for graceful interrupts ('For a graceful interrupt use process_write: send and a carriage return as two separate writes'). This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool and when to use a sibling.

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