terminal_execute_background

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the call returns a PID immediately and that the process can be stopped with terminal_execute. However, it does not mention output handling, shell environment, lifecycle after the tool returns, or potential side effects of arbitrary command execution.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, the second states the key return value, and the third gives the stop procedure. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: background execution, immediate PID return, and a termination path. Minor gaps such as stdout/stderr behavior or shell environment details are not critical for an initial correct call.

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% for both command and cwd, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds no specific parameter-level details beyond general background execution semantics, which matches the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Start a long-running process in the background' and states the immediate PID return. This clearly differentiates the tool from its foreground sibling terminal_execute, which is also referenced.

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 implies when to use this tool ('long-running') and gives a follow-up action via terminal_execute, but it does not explicitly say when to choose terminal_execute_background over terminal_execute for launching commands, nor does it state exclusions. Usage context is clear but not fully specified.

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