process.start

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'asynchronous' and the two modes, which are useful, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether a task record is created), failure modes, or what happens if both argv and shell are provided. It also lacks any note about authentication or resource implications.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core action immediately. It is concise and free of filler. However, it is almost too terse, omitting important details that would not bloat it significantly.

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 complexity (5 parameters, nested env object, no output schema, no annotations), this description is insufficient. It does not explain how argv and shell interact, whether one is required, what task_id references, or what the return/status mechanism is. The sibling tools like process.status and task.create imply a workflow, but the description provides no context to navigate it.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal meaning by hinting at argv vs shell modes, but it does not explain task_id (beyond being required), cwd, env, or the relationship between argv and shell. The description does not help an agent understand how to populate these parameters correctly.

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 uses a specific verb 'start' with a clear resource 'asynchronous Task process' and mentions two execution modes (argv or shell). This distinguishes it from siblings like process.output and process.cancel, which clearly handle output and cancellation. However, it does not clarify what a 'Task process' is or how it relates to task.create/resume, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like task.create or task.resume, nor any exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and sibling set. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., must a task exist first?) or when to prefer argv over shell.

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