claude_start_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: async background execution, immediate return, timeout boundaries, and the MAX_CONCURRENT_RUNS_EXCEEDED error are all disclosed. It could go further on side effects or cleanup expectations, but the core behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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 tightly written and well structured, with the most important operational facts front-loaded. Each paragraph earns its place: async behavior, return semantics, when to use it, required parameters, and concurrency limits.

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?

The description covers the main async workflow and monitoring guidance well, but the tool is complex with many optional parameters and no annotations. It omits the likely synchronous alternative claude_run_task and does not clarify how to pass required fields inside the 'req' object, which is a meaningful invocation gap.

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, but it only names a subset of parameters and does not explain the required 'req' object wrapper. More importantly, it states options.timeout_s default is 300 while the schema says 600, creating a direct contradiction that could lead to incorrect invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Start a Claude Code CLI task asynchronously'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing async execution, immediate return of a run_id, and the ability to run up to 3600s.

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 gives explicit guidance for when to use this tool: 'Use this for any task that may exceed 600s' with concrete examples. It also directs the agent to claude_poll_task and claude_cancel_task for lifecycle management. However, it does not explicitly contrast with claude_run_task, which appears to be the likely synchronous alternative.

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