ssh_execute_background

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It describes nohup usage and logging behavior, but omits potential issues like nohup availability, job persistence across shell restarts, or permissions needed.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The 'Args' section is efficient, though merging it into prose might reduce bulk slightly. Overall, every sentence adds value.

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, an output schema exists (not shown), so return values are covered. All parameters are explained, and core behavior is described. Minor gaps like error handling and multi-job management remain.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides an 'Args' section explaining each parameter's purpose and defaults (e.g., log_file default path includes timestamp). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though could be slightly more detailed.

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 'Run a command in the background using nohup', specifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ssh_execute (runs foreground) and ssh_execute_script (scripts).

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 explains that the command continues after SSH session ends and output is redirected to a log file, providing clear context for long-running tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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