kill_process_treeTerminate a process and all its child processes by PID, with optional timeout and parent inclusion, to clear stuck or unwanted process trees.
结束指定 PID 及其子孙进程。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pid | Yes | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| include_parent | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the scope of termination (PID plus descendants), but omits permissions, irreversibility, force/graceful semantics, timeout behavior, and whether the parent is affected.
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 wasted words. The target and action are immediately clear.
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?
This is a destructive process-tree operation with no annotations and three parameters, two of which are undocumented. Although an output schema exists, the description still lacks safety, permission, and parameter-behavior detail needed to invoke the tool confidently.
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 only clarifies the pid scope and says nothing about the timeout parameter or the include_parent parameter, which remain undocumented in both schema and description.
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?
States a specific action ('结束'/terminate) and resource scope (specified PID and its descendant processes). The scope word '子孙进程' distinguishes it from a single-process kill, but the sibling kill_process is not explicitly named or contrasted.
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 only says what the tool does; it does not explain when to use it instead of kill_process or get_process_tree. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.