tealkit_run_background

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that execution is asynchronous and fire-and-forget (i.e., no inline result), which is real behavioral value, but it omits what an agent most needs: that the call returns a job handle and results must be retrieved via tealkit_get_job_status/tealkit_list_jobs, plus any auth or concurrency constraints.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the dispatch model is stated immediately. It is arguably too terse for a task-dispatch tool, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a 3-parameter mutation/dispatch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does but not the surrounding workflow — notably how to observe the dispatched job or that the call is non-blocking with respect to results. Sibling tools like tealkit_get_job_status exist but are not referenced.

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 'task', 'arguments', and 'timeout_minutes' are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format, syntax, or payload detail beyond that, so the 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 ('Dispatches') and resource ('asynchronous, long-running task to the TealKit server/NAS'), with the parenthetical 'fire-and-forget' clarifying the dispatch model. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closest sibling, tealkit_schedule_job, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 says nothing about when to choose this tool over tealkit_schedule_job (deferred) or tealkit_crawl_and_index (specific workloads). There is no exclusion, prerequisite, or alternative guidance — only an implied async-execution context.

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