Run Command in Background

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false. The description adds: 'ALWAYS requires interactive user approval', 'no timeout', 'they are tracked and can be killed with kill_process', and 'they do not survive server restart'. These details go beyond annotations, providing full behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured with 'Args:', 'Returns:', and a 'Note:' section. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded with key 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?

Given 2 parameters, annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers how to start a background process, what the return value is, process lifecycle, and safety requirements. There are no gaps in context.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter names and adds minor details: 'cwd' defaults to the first allowed directory, and 'command' is described but not more than the schema. No additional meaning beyond the schema is provided.

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 long-running command in the background and returns immediately with its process ID. The tool name 'run_command_background' is well reflected, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'run_command' and 'kill_process'.

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?

Explicitly states 'ALWAYS requires interactive user approval before running,' which is a critical usage guideline. It also mentions that background processes have no timeout and can be killed, providing clear context for when to use this tool. A comparator to 'run_command' would be ideal but is not strictly necessary.

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