start_process

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the process blocks, returns a handle, requires shell setup, or how output is handled. This is a significant gap for a process-starting 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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence, which is succinct. However, it is under-specified and lacks any structural breakdown, such as an overview, example, or parameter hints, making it minimally adequate.

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 complexity (5 parameters, nested objects), the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, this one-line description is wholly inadequate. It does not enable an agent to select or invoke the tool correctly.

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 adds no information about the five parameters (command, cwd, env, args, shell). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions, leaving the agent without any guidance on how to properly populate them.

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 phrase 'Start a long-running process' clearly identifies the action (start) and the resource (process), and 'long-running' hints at a non-blocking or background operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'start_search' or 'dev_server_start', so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or complementary tools such as 'interact_with_process' or 'kill_process'. The only context is 'long-running', which vaguely implies use for background tasks but is insufficient.

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