run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool returns immediately with a PID and lists supported models. It also implies destructiveness by including 'delete files' in capabilities but provides no warnings or details about error handling, permissions, or side effects of processes. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 well-structured with bullet points and sections, making it scannable. It includes necessary details but is somewhat lengthy. Some redundancy (e.g., repeated emphasis on PID workflow) could be trimmed, but overall it is effective.

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 complexity (6 params, no output schema, multiple sibling tools), the description covers the essential workflow, model options, and parameter constraints. However, it lacks details on error responses, return format beyond PID, and potential limitations (e.g., max prompt length, timeout behavior). This makes it adequate but not fully complete.

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%, and the description adds value beyond the schema by providing context for the model parameter (aliases and provider explanations), the mutual exclusivity of prompt and prompt_file, and the workflow of using the returned PID. It enhances understanding of how to use the parameters effectively.

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 that the tool starts an AI agent CLI process in the background and returns a PID immediately. It lists specific capabilities (file ops, code, git, terminal, web search) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_processes, get_result, and kill_process by directing users to use those for monitoring and results.

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 explicitly instructs to use list_processes and get_result for monitoring progress and includes prompt tips (e.g., 'Be concise, explicit & step-by-step for complex tasks'). It mentions that prompt and prompt_file are mutually exclusive. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like peek or wait, leaving some ambiguity.

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