Command in background

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns a job id immediately, output is collected via the job call, and the job lives only as long as the server session. These details help the agent understand async behavior and output retrieval, though it does not cover auth requirements or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by two short sentences that add critical details about output retrieval and job lifetime. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no wasted text.

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, the 100% schema coverage, the presence of an output schema, and the annotations, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly: async return, job id, output retrieval method, and session-bound lifetime. Nothing essential is omitted.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (cwd, host, sudo, command) with types, defaults, and descriptions. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Start a command on a host in the background and return its job id right away.' It clearly distinguishes background execution from foreground execution, but does not explicitly name the sibling 'run' as the foreground alternative. This makes the purpose clear but leaves sibling differentiation to inference.

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 hints at usage with 'For long-running commands: output is collected with the job call,' implying this tool is appropriate for long-running tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'run', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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