remote_job_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool starts a long-running command, returns immediately, and yields a job ID, which implies async execution. Yet it does not mention whether the session must already exist, required permissions, or behavior upon timeout, leaving important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and return behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 output schema exists, return structure is covered. However, the description lacks crucial context about session prerequisites, timeout semantics, and error conditions, making it only partially complete for a tool with zero annotation support.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly references 'command' and 'session_name' in prose, but does not explain their formats or constraints, and 'timeout' is entirely unaddressed. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 action ('Start'), the resource ('a long-running command in a named session'), and the immediate result ('return immediately with a job ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remote_job_status or remote_execute, which either monitor or run synchronously.

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 phrase 'long-running command' provides clear context for when to use this tool, and 'return immediately' signals asynchronous behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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