Kill Process

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that this is a destructive, likely irreversible operation, whether termination is graceful or forceful, what permissions are required, or how the timeout parameter affects behavior.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. However, its brevity reflects under-specification more than effective concision.

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 destructive process-control tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits timeout semantics, safety warnings, usage distinctions from kill_process_tree, and behavioral context, though the existing output schema relieves it of return-value explanation.

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 should compensate. It only clarifies that pid identifies the target process, while the timeout parameter (with a default of 3) is not described at all, leaving its units and effect unexplained.

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 states a specific verb (结束/terminate) and resource (指定 PID 的进程), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling kill_process_tree, but the reference to a specified PID implies a single process rather than a tree.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as kill_process_tree, nor any mention of prerequisite permissions, safety conditions, or side effects. The agent receives only the bare action statement.

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