signal-process

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals that this is a destructive operation. The description adds that the target is a remote process and enumerates the available signals, but it does not disclose consequences such as process termination, irreversibility, or that KILL is more forceful than TERM. No contradiction with 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, signal options, target, and identifier in minimal words.

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 3-parameter mutation with a destructive annotation, this is mostly adequate. However, it lacks operational details: what the profile is for, whether an active session is required, and what a successful call returns (no output schema). These are not fatal for a simple tool, but they are clear gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions PID and the signal enum, both already defined. The 'profile' parameter remains unexplained in the description, though the schema labels it 'Profile name'.

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 uses a specific verb ('send'), a precise object ('signal'), and a clear target ('remote process by PID'). It also lists the supported signal values (INT, TERM, KILL), making the operation unambiguous and naturally distinct from sibling session/command/SFTP tools.

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?

There is no statement about when to choose this tool, what prerequisites are required (e.g., an open session/connection or profile), or when not to use it. The purpose implies the use case, but no guidance is provided and sibling tools like run-command are not ruled out.

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