Execute Async

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only mentions 'background' and 'remote screen session.' It omits key behavioral aspects such as how results are retrieved (likely via 'get-result'), the meaning of 'confirm_code', or whether the command is non-blocking and immediately returns a handle.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. No filler or repetition.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), this description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return behavior, the purpose of `confirm_code`, and the distinction from related tools like `exec-async-sudo`, leaving significant gaps for the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. The `command`, `machine`, and `confirm_code` parameters are entirely unaddressed, leaving the agent to guess their roles and constraints.

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 the tool's function: executing a long-running command in the background via a remote screen session. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'exec' (short-running) and 'upload'/'download' (file transfer).

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for long-running commands that need to run in the background. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or cite alternatives, but the 'background' qualifier inherently excludes synchronous execution tools like 'exec'.

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