killDevice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Kill' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't specify if this is irreversible, requires permissions, affects other processes, or has side effects like data loss. This leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence ('Kill a running device'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (destructive operation with nested parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, prerequisites, or what happens post-execution, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, there is only 1 parameter (a nested object), so the burden is lower. The schema defines the nested properties clearly, making the description's lack of detail less critical, but it still doesn't explain what 'device' entails in context.

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 the verb ('kill') and resource ('a running device'), which clarifies the basic action. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'terminateApp' or 'startDevice', leaving ambiguity about scope and differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'terminateApp', 'startDevice', and 'setActiveDevice', there's no indication of whether 'killDevice' is for physical devices, emulators, or specific contexts, leading to potential misuse.

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