run_background_process

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

No annotations provided; description only mentions it runs in background and tracks by label. Lacks important details like process lifetime, error handling, resource consumption, or whether it survives session disconnect.

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?

Concise and front-loaded with purpose, followed by instructional sentences. Could benefit from bullet points but efficient overall.

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 output schema exists but is not described, the description omits return value information. Also missing details on how to track the process, failure modes, and integration with list_background_processes.

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 0%, but description adds meaning for label (short descriptive) and working_dir (optional absolute path). However, it doesn't clarify command format, label uniqueness, or working_dir default behavior.

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 the verb 'start' and the resource 'long-running process in the background', and distinguishes from siblings like stop_background_process and list_background_processes.

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 advises using a short descriptive label, and provides post-action steps: verify with http_request and stop with stop_background_process. No when-not needed since it's a standard utility.

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