Run SecObserve Background Task

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

Beyond the annotations (which only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses that the task is queued and returns immediately, that only one instance runs at a time, and details error codes (400, 409, 403) and authentication requirements (superuser). This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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 clear sections (intro, Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling) and is front-loaded with the core purpose and the most important behavioral trait (queued vs. inline). Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff. It is appropriately detailed for a tool with this complexity.

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 (asynchronous execution, multiple error codes, auth requirements) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: how to list tasks, how to run one, what the return looks like, what errors mean, and who can use it. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without guessing.

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?

The schema already provides a clear description for the 'task' parameter ('Registered task name. Omit to list the names...'). The tool description echoes this and adds practical usage guidance (e.g., 'confirm the exact name from the listing first') and error-handling context for invalid names. While it doesn't add novel meaning beyond the schema, it reinforces and enriches the parameter semantics with examples and error codes.

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 a specific action ('trigger' or 'list' scheduled background jobs) on a specific resource ('SecObserve's scheduled background jobs'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming secobserve_product_metrics as the alternative for checking staleness, making it easy for an agent to pick the right tool.

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 gives explicit when-to-use scenarios ('when a metric looks stale or housekeeping has not run') and when-not-to-use with a direct alternative ('Don't use when you want to know whether metrics are stale (use secobserve_product_metrics with kind="status")'). It also provides concrete examples for common intents, leaving no ambiguity.

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