start_process

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key async behavior: background=True returns a PID immediately while background=False blocks up to timeout_sec. It does not mention that this executes arbitrary code on the host, what permissions or environment the child inherits, or whether the process survives the session — meaningful omissions for an unrestricted execution tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact per-parameter list with no filler. The Args block is repetitive in form but each line earns its place by adding constraints the schema lacks.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameter behavior is well covered. However, for a host-level process launcher with zero annotations, the description should say more about the risk/permission model and the lifecycle of the spawned process than it does.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it documents all five parameters. It adds real meaning beyond the schema types: 'command' may be a bare executable name or a full command line, 'args' is only needed if not already in command, and 'timeout_sec' applies only when background is False. Only cwd is described minimally.

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 first sentence states a concrete verb and resource (start a process/CLI utility) and adds the scope qualifier 'on the host machine'. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like run_custom_toolchain, esptool_command, or adb_command, which could also launch executables, leaving ambiguity for an agent choosing between them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The only usage-adjacent information is embedded in the parameter docs (background vs. foreground with timeout), which describes how to call it rather than when to prefer it over run_custom_toolchain or the vendor-specific command tools.

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