devin_request_async

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds 'durable background job', implying non-immediate response, but does not elaborate on idempotency, auth requirements, or side effects beyond what annotations state.

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 sentences, zero waste, action verb front-loaded. Perfectly concise for the core purpose.

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?

With 17 parameters, no output schema, and minimal description, the tool lacks context on what the background job returns (e.g., a job ID) and how to correlate polling. While schema is detailed, the description should at least mention the response format for polling.

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 baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds no further insight into parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool starts a Devin CLI request as a durable background job. It distinguishes from siblings by naming specific polling/collection tools (llm_job_status, llm_job_result), but does not explicitly contrast with devin_request (synchronous variant).

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?

Provides explicit follow-up steps: 'Poll with llm_job_status, collect with llm_job_result.' This guides agents on usage pattern. However, it omits when to use this async version vs. other async AI tools (e.g., claude_request_async) given the large sibling list.

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