Run long remote tasks in the background without waiting, returning a job ID right away. Track results later with remote_job_check; status survives restarts.
后台起一个远端任务，立即返回不等待。适合编译、全量测试、构建镜像这类几分钟的活——返回 jobId，之后用 remote_job_check 查结果。任务状态存在远端文件系统上，本工具重启、甚至 WorkBuddy 重启后照样能接着查。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | 工作目录，默认 SSH_REMOTE_BASE 指定的目录 | |
| name | No | 任务标签，便于事后辨认，如 full-test | |
| command | Yes | 要跑的完整命令，会过 shell |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: async fire-and-return semantics, a jobId handle, and durable state persisted on the remote filesystem that survives tool and WorkBuddy restarts. It omits auth/precondition and error behavior, but the core async contract is well disclosed.
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?
Front-loaded with purpose and immediately followed by usage context, with no wasted sentences. The persistence clause is slightly verbose but earns its place by explaining durability.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return value (jobId) and the retrieval path (remote_job_check), which is the key thing an agent needs. Complete enough for an async-launch tool, though it could state what happens on command failure.
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 the schema already documents command, cwd, and name. The description adds no per-parameter detail beyond noting the jobId result, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ("后台起一个远端任务" – starts a remote background task) and the key behavioral differentiator ("立即返回不等待" – returns immediately without waiting). It also routes the agent to the sibling remote_job_check for retrieving results, distinguishing it from the blocking remote_exec.
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?
Gives concrete when-to-use guidance: suitable for compilation, full test suites, and image builds that take several minutes. It names remote_job_check as the follow-up step, but does not explicitly contrast with or exclude the synchronous remote_exec sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.