remote_job_start

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the risk profile is covered structurally. The description adds that the call is non-blocking and yields a job ID, which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about the timeout parameter's effect (default 86400s), what happens to the job when it expires, or that cleanup/cancel siblings exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the async contract and return value are packed into one clause. Nothing here is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description is adequate for identifying the tool. However, with 0% schema coverage across three parameters and a destructive annotation, the missing timeout semantics and job-lifecycle guidance (list/status/result/cancel) leave real gaps.

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 carry the burden, and it only glosses 'session_name' as 'a named session' and 'command'. The 'timeout' parameter — with a 24-hour default on a destructive, non-idempotent tool — is never mentioned, leaving a consequential parameter entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a long-running command in a named session') plus the key behavioral differentiator 'return immediately with a job ID'. This implicitly separates it from synchronous siblings like remote_execute and remote_run_program, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'long-running' and 'return immediately' — the agent can infer this is the async/non-blocking path — but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not statement and no pointer to remote_execute for blocking calls or to remote_job_status/remote_job_result for follow-up.

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