backgroundExecute

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'background' and 'interval' but does not specify whether the command runs repeatedly or just once, how output is handled, or if a task ID is returned. Minimal disclosure earns a score of 2.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and essential details. It is not as helpful as it could be, scoring a 3 for being adequate but not well-crafted.

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 has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits key behavioral details (e.g., interval semantics, cwd role, return value) and does not cover all aspects needed for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the four parameters (connectionId, command, interval, cwd). The tool's purpose vaguely hints at 'command' and 'interval', but no semantic detail is given for any parameter.

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 what the tool does: execute a command in the background on a remote server with an interval. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'executeCommand', which likely runs commands in the foreground. A score of 4 reflects clear purpose but lack of sibling distinction.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over 'executeCommand' or other alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like an active connection. This is a significant gap for an agent.

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