Follow a background run

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true), the description discloses specifics: `stop` 'ends it, and everything it started,' and a left-alone background command keeps running (openWorldHint). It also reveals the subtle consequence that an empty answer stays in the conversation for the rest of it, which is not captured by any annotation.

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 first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the rest is dense, informative prose covering modes, parameters, and behavioral caveats rather than padding. It is longer than average, but the tool has four interacting modes and subtle edge cases, so the length is justified.

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?

The description explains the return format (incremental output since last ask, preserved line numbers, gap summaries for progress-only stretches, last output on stop) and covers the tricky consequences (empty results persisting in the conversation, background commands continuing to run). With an output schema present and all four parameters addressed, the description is complete enough for correct invocation in the described scenarios.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and does address all four parameters in prose: `handle` (from a `run` call with `background`), `stop` (ends the command and what it started), `everything` (answers for every run still going), and `wait` (holds until something is said). However, some details remain implicit: the units of the `wait` number and the behavior of a null `handle` with no other flags are not specified.

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 first sentence states a specific action (return what a background command has printed since last asked) on a specific resource (a background command from `run`), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like `peek` (which fetches a specific line) and `run` (which starts a background command). The title and description align on the core purpose of following an ongoing background run.

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 ties the tool to a `run` call made with `background` and contrasts it with `peek`, explaining the conditions for each (lines keep their numbers, so `peek` returns the same line). It gives concrete when-to-use guidance for `everything` ('when you started three things and want to know where they are') and for `wait` (avoiding empty results that persist in the conversation), plus the imperative to `stop` a finished command.

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