start_background_command

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

With no annotations, the description mentions starting a process, logging, and status recording. It lacks details on potential side effects, required permissions, or resource implications, which is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences with efficient wording. The first sentence establishes purpose and preference, the second provides key details. No extraneous information.

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?

The description omits what the tool returns (e.g., an identifier for later status checks) despite no output schema. It also doesn't clarify whether the call is synchronous or asynchronous, which is essential for a background task.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context about logging but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states it starts a background shell command, writes logs, and records status. It explicitly distinguishes itself as the preferred tool for training and long jobs, differentiating from sibling tools like run_shell_command and watch_background_command.

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 indicates when to use it (for training and long jobs) and the workflow with watch_background_command. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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