fish_get_tasks_batch

Does 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 the read-only nature ('Query') and return contents, but does not detail error behavior, rate limits, or potential side effects. This is adequate for a status query but lacks depth.

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 three sentences with no fluff, front-loads the primary purpose in the first sentence, and every sentence conveys meaningful information (purpose, efficiency, return data).

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 the simple tool (one parameter, output schema provided), the description is sufficiently complete: it states what the tool does and what it returns. It could have explicitly mentioned the singular alternative or any limits, but this is not necessary for basic usage.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter task_ids ('List of task IDs to query status for'). The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Query the status of multiple Fish tasks at once' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from the singular sibling fish_get_task by emphasizing 'multiple' and 'batch' efficiency.

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?

It implies when to use this tool ('in a single request' for efficiency) versus repeatedly calling a single-task tool, but does not explicitly name the alternative fish_get_task or state exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the batch use case.

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