terminate_process

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly warns 'DESTRUCTIVE; may cause data loss' and mentions force-kill and optional descendant termination. This discloses the key safety concern, though it could add details about irreversibility or permissions.

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, well-front-loaded sentence that states the action and the critical warning. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 lack of annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is somewhat sparse. It covers the destructive nature and the optional children option, but does not address potential errors, permission requirements, or the exact behavior of 'force'. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more behavioral detail would improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at the 'force' parameter via 'force-kill' and 'include_children' via 'optionally its descendants', but does not clearly map these to the parameter names or explain defaults/behavior. The pid parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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 ('Terminate or force-kill a process') and the scope ('optionally its descendants'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_processes and start_process by naming the specific verb and resource.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only describes what the tool does, with no explicit usage context or comparison to other tools.

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