shell_bg_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals that the command runs in /bin/sh, has a 30-minute default timeout, and returns immediately with a job ID. However, it does not disclose error handling, permissions, or potential side effects, leaving gaps for a background process tool.

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 three concise sentences, each adding unique value: purpose, sibling usage guidance, and operational details. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, management tools, timeout, and shell. It could mention the return format (job ID) more explicitly, but it already implies that. Overall, it is adequately complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context: 'Default timeout is 30 minutes' and 'Commands run in /bin/sh,' which goes beyond the schema's default value description. This helps agents understand typical usage.

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 'Start a command in the background and return immediately with a job ID,' specifying the verb (start), resource (background command), and output (job ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like shell_bg_status, shell_bg_log, and shell_bg_stop.

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 advises using shell_bg_status, shell_bg_log, and shell_bg_stop to manage the job, providing clear alternatives. It also mentions the default timeout and shell environment, giving sufficient context for when to use this tool.

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