execute_command_async

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses async behavior, returns command ID, and mentions companion tools. But lacks details on error handling, authentication specifics (beyond optional params), and what happens on timeout (though default is given). Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Well-structured: purpose, use cases, companion tools, then parameter list. No superfluous text, each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with key information about async behavior and return value.

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?

Output schema exists (though not shown) so return format is presumably documented elsewhere. Description covers all 7 parameters, mentions companion tools, and gives usage context. Missing some behavioral details but overall sufficient.

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%. The Args section adds basic descriptions to each parameter (e.g., host is 'Hostname, IP address, or SSH config alias'), but they remain terse and do not provide constraints or advanced semantics. Meets minimal expectations.

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 it executes a command asynchronously without blocking, and distinguishes from synchronous counterparts by mentioning returns a command ID for later status retrieval. It also gives explicit use cases like long-running commands.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (e.g., long-running commands, monitoring) and lists companion tools for follow-up actions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like the synchronous 'execute_command'.

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