Start Process

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

Annotations include openWorldHint: true and destructiveHint: false, but the description clarifies it is non-blocking, which is not in annotations. It does not detail what happens on failure or output, but given openWorldHint, the description adds useful behavioral context.

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 concise with a clear summary line and structured args section. The examples are helpful but add a bit of length; still well-organized.

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 has 3 parameters (100% coverage) and no output schema, the description covers the core usage. However, it does not explain return behavior (e.g., process ID, success indication) or error handling, which are important for a non-blocking start.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the 'optional' note for args and cwd and provides examples, but does not elaborate on format restrictions (e.g., path requirements) beyond the schema.

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 starts a process in the background (non-blocking), distinguishing it from fc_execute_command (likely blocking) and fc_kill_process (stopping). The verb 'starts' and resource 'process' are specific.

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 provides examples but does not give guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like fc_execute_command, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions) or exclusions.

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