ssh_execute_background

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that execution is background (non-blocking), returns a task ID and output file path, and indicates a follow-up mechanism. No contradictions. Missing details like auth requirements or rate limits, but acceptable for a simple 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and result. No redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

For a tool with only 2 required parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains purpose, return values, and how to monitor progress. No gaps identified.

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% and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds 'long-running' but otherwise does not enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action (execute command), resource (SSH background), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'long-running' and 'background'. It also mentions the return values (task ID, output file path) and directs to ssh_check_background, which differentiates from ssh_execute.

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 to use ssh_check_background for monitoring, which is a clear usage guideline. It implies this tool is for long-running commands that should not block. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the sibling context provides that information.

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