procexec

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

The description details behavioral traits: executes on host system, supports background execution, suspended state with OS-specific methods, and warns about security. This is sufficient given no annotations, but could mention return value or error behavior.

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 multi-sentence but each sentence adds value: purpose, features, warning, usage hints. It is front-loaded and compact without 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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers execution behavior but does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., PID, error codes). Could be more complete for a complex tool, but adequate for basic use.

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 for suspended implying background=true and timeout being ignored for background/suspended, but does not significantly enhance beyond schema descriptions.

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 the tool executes a command as a new process, and mentions background and suspended state support. It distinguishes from siblings like prockill which is for killing processes.

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 a warning about arbitrary command execution and explains when to use suspended state and how to resume with prockill. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools like bash or specify when not 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.