jumpserver_job_start

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true/readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the shell is reserved while a job runs (other commands get SESSION_BUSY) and the job auto-stops at maxDuration. It also notes the jobId return value. Not exhaustive (no auth/permission notes), but materially useful.

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?

Two dense sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose, then the return/next-step workflow, then the runtime constraints. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the return (a jobId) and how to consume it via jumpserver_job_read. Combined with the shell-reservation and auto-stop notes, an agent has everything needed to invoke and manage the job correctly.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces maxDuration auto-stop behavior and gives a command example, but adds little beyond the structured fields. 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 ('Start a STREAMING job on a server') and immediately scopes it to a class of never-returning commands, distinguishing it from siblings like jumpserver_exec and jumpserver_run that handle one-shot commands.

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?

Explicitly defines when to use it ('commands that never return on their own') with concrete examples, and lays out the full workflow: poll jumpserver_job_read(jobId), then jumpserver_job_stop(jobId). The agent knows both the trigger condition and the follow-up calls.

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