execute_command_async

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the significant behavioral trait of returning immediately and the polling mechanism via execution_id. While it doesn't mention output handling or error behavior, the core async semantics are transparent and go beyond what the tool name alone conveys.

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 two short, focused sentences. The first immediately states the core action, and the second provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy, fluff, or over-explanation.

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 tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the key return behavior. It does not need to explain return values in depth because the output schema exists. Minor missing context includes lifecycle or cancellation, but overall it is complete for an async runner.

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 a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, but it does mention the returned execution_id, which enriches understanding of the command and devbox_id purposes. No gaps in parameter documentation exist.

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 'Start a command on a devbox and return immediately', which is a specific verb+resource pair. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool execute_command by emphasizing the asynchronous return and provides the key execution_id concept, making the tool's purpose obvious.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this for long-running or background processes (servers, watchers).' This is clear contextual guidance. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like execute_command for synchronous commands, but the contrasting asynchronous behavior is implied.

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