force_terminate

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral details beyond what is in the annotations, such as whether termination is immediate, if unsaved data is lost, or if it affects other sessions. It merely restates the tool's purpose.

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 short (two sentences) but the second sentence about alternative references ('DC: ...' usage) may be marginally useful for instruction-following but does not directly aid in tool selection or invocation. It is not overly verbose but could be more focused.

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?

As a destructive tool with no output schema, the description should provide more context about expected behavior, error conditions, and the relationship of 'pid' to terminal sessions. The current description is insufficient for an agent to safely and correctly use the tool, especially given the high-risk nature of force termination.

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 one required parameter 'pid' with zero schema documentation (0% coverage). The description does not explain what 'pid' is or how to obtain it, leaving the agent without necessary context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 force terminates a running terminal session, using a specific verb ('force terminate') and resource ('terminal session'). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'kill_process' or 'stop_search', which could cause ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'kill_process' or 'interact_with_process'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., obtaining a PID) or context for usage. The description only states the action, not the conditions.

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