Kill command

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the command must be server-managed and shows a KILL example, but does not explain escalation semantics (TERM vs KILL vs INT), what happens to buffered output, or the relationship between wait_ms and kill_wait_ms.

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 sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the example placed after it. The JSON example partially restates the schema but is compact and does not pad the text.

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 7-parameter destructive mutation with an output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers only 2 parameters and omits the wait_ms vs kill_wait_ms distinction, signal escalation behavior, and output verbosity controls. An agent cannot invoke it fully correctly from this text alone.

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% across 7 parameters, and the description only touches command_id and signal (via example). The five remaining parameters (wait_ms, kill_wait_ms, verbosity, preview_bytes, max_output_bytes) are undocumented anywhere, leaving a significant compensation gap.

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 (Terminate) plus a scoped resource (server-managed command) keyed by command_id, which distinguishes it from process-spawning siblings like exec_command and from write_stdin/read_output. It never names an alternative sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full 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?

Usage is only implied by 'Terminate a server-managed command.' There is no guidance on when to kill versus send input via write_stdin, no mention of prerequisites, and no conditions or exclusions.

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