Run all tasks in a spawned batch in parallel, wait for completion, and collect results with latency, tokens, and errors for each model.
Execute all tasks in a spawned batch in parallel. Waits for all to complete. Returns results from every model with metadata (text, latency, tokens, errors).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| batchId | Yes | The batch ID returned by nexus_subagent_spawn |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses parallelism, blocking semantics ('Waits for all to complete'), and the return payload with metadata (text, latency, tokens, errors). It does not mention timeout, partial-failure handling, or side effects, but what is stated is substantial and relevant.
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?
Three short sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the blocking behavior, and the return value. There is no fluff or repetition, and the most important verb ('Execute') is front-loaded.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains input provenance, execution semantics, and return metadata. A small gap is the lack of guidance on long-running behavior or cancellation, but 'Waits for all to complete' partially covers this.
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%, and the batchId parameter is already well explained as 'The batch ID returned by nexus_subagent_spawn'. The tool description reinforces the provenance of the parameter but adds no new format or constraint details beyond the schema.
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: 'Execute all tasks in a spawned batch in parallel.' It clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from siblings like status or spawn by focusing on execution of an already-spawned batch and explicitly referencing the spawn counterpart.
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 the tool: when you have a batch ID from nexus_subagent_spawn and want to execute all tasks. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like nexus_subagent_status or nexus_subagent_collab, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the correct invocation point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.