execute_command_async

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the async background execution, immediate task ID return, and ability to check status/output/cancel. It does not mention permission implications, but the core behavior is well communicated.

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 English text is two concise sentences, but the Chinese translation duplicates the content without adding new information. Still, it is not verbose and front-loads the key behavior.

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 an output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on the async workflow. It explains the task ID mechanism and long-running use case, which is sufficient for selection. It could mention how to cancel or get status, but sibling tools cover those.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, which is the baseline for this dimension.

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 it executes a command asynchronously in the background and returns a task ID. It distinguishes from the sibling 'execute_command' by highlighting the async behavior and long-running use case.

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 says 'Use this for long-running commands,' giving a clear context. It does not name alternatives like 'execute_command' for synchronous use, but the sibling list provides that distinction.

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