nohup

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds context about requiring --allow_nohup confirmation for safety, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it could elaborate more on how flags like allow_background affect process behavior.

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 succinct with no unnecessary details. It front-loads the purpose and uses clear, direct sentences.

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 purpose, usage, and safety confirmation. It does not explain return values (no output schema), but naming of output file is in schema. Slight gap in explaining background process behavior, but overall sufficient given the tool's complexity.

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 description does not need to detail parameters. It adds minimal extra context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., capturing stdout/stderr). Baseline score is appropriate.

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 tool runs a command immune to SIGHUP, ideal for long-running background tasks, and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'nice' and 'timeout' by specifying what it is not for.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use (survive terminal closure), when not to use (CPU priority or time-bounded execution), and alternatives ('nice', 'timeout') are provided.

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