Prompt CLI Agent

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: returns immediately with task ID, client polls, prevents timeouts, and specifies YOLO mode duration. This exceeds annotation-only info.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with core action, followed by async behavior and benefit. Highly concise and structured.

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 (11 parameters, async, destructive), the description covers the key workflow (async polling, timeout). Output schema exists, so return format is covered elsewhere. Missing minor details like polling mechanism, but 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?

With 91% schema coverage, the description adds minimal parameter detail beyond the schema. It mentions YOLO mode and timeout but does not explain individual parameters further. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 sends a prompt to a CLI runner as a background task, returns immediately with a task ID, and prevents timeouts. This distinguishes it from siblings like batch_prompt (batch) and preference tools.

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 explains the async nature and timeout prevention, providing clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like batch_prompt or state when not to use.

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