nanobanana_get_tasks_batch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a query/check operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, and mentions efficiency benefits. However, it lacks details on potential rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs. The description adds some context but doesn't fully cover behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by efficiency comparison, usage guidelines, and return information. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is clear and well-organized. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with no wasted words.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects), high schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, efficiency context, and return summary, addressing all necessary aspects without needing to duplicate schema information.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'task_ids' well-documented as 'List of task IDs to query. Allows querying multiple tasks at once.' The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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's purpose as 'Query multiple image generation/edit tasks at once' and 'Efficiently check the status of multiple tasks in a single request,' specifying the verb (query/check), resource (tasks), and scope (multiple/batch). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool nanobanana_get_task by noting it's 'More efficient than calling nanobanana_get_task multiple times,' providing clear differentiation.

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 includes explicit usage guidelines with a 'Use this when:' section listing three specific scenarios (e.g., 'You have multiple pending generations to check'), and it names the alternative tool nanobanana_get_task, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. This directly helps the agent choose between this tool and its sibling.

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