interceptor_kill

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full responsibility. It discloses the key behavioral trait of retrieving final stdout/stderr output, which goes beyond a simple kill. However, it does not mention error handling or what happens if the target ID is invalid.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence states the primary action, the second adds important context. Excellent brevity.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main functionality adequately. It mentions output retrieval. Minor gaps include no mention of return format or behavior on invalid target ID, but overall sufficient.

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% and the parameter 'target_id' already has a clear description. The description adds no further semantic value beyond restating 'by target ID.' Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly specifies the action: 'Kill a spawned process by target ID.' It also adds a side effect of retrieving final stdout/stderr. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like interceptor_spawn (creates) and interceptor_list (lists).

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 implies usage for terminating a process and retrieving its output. It references the target ID from interceptor_spawn, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent.

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