start_ps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'in background' but does not explain how to retrieve output, monitor progress, or handle errors. Critical details for a long-running command are missing.

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 with no wasted words, but it is too terse. Conciseness is good, but important details are omitted, reducing overall effectiveness.

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 two parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools like 'ps' and 'stop_process', the description fails to explain return behavior (e.g., how to get results), error handling, or lifecycle of the background process.

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 0%, yet the description adds no information about parameters. 'command' and 'cwd' are not described, leaving the agent unsure about valid values or purpose.

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 'Starts a long PowerShell command in the background' clearly states the action (starts), resource (PowerShell command), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'ps' which likely runs foreground commands. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'ps' (possibly synchronous). The description only mentions 'long' but does not specify scenarios or prerequisites.

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