batch

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

Annotations declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the batch HALTS on the first failed precondition, safety stop, or step error and returns a per-step trace; every step passes the same safety gate as a direct call; allowConfirm only works if the daemon was started with CLAWD_BATCH_ALLOW_CONFIRM=1 and never bypasses block-tier. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs and none are in the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries information about halting, safety gating, or parameter aliases. It is dense and parenthetical-heavy, which slightly hurts scanability, but there is no filler or repetition.

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 complex, no-output-schema meta-tool this is thorough: it covers step structure, aliases, precondition semantics, halt conditions, the safety gate, dryRun, and confirm-tier gating. An agent has everything needed to construct and reason about a batch without opening the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `expect` is a precondition re-checked by re-perceiving before the step runs, `args` is an alias of `arguments`, and `arguments` may carry an `expect` assertion array verified post-step. The allowConfirm env-var gating and dryRun pre-scan behavior also go beyond the schema text.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Run an ORDERED LIST of tool calls in one shot') and explains the mechanism ('collapses many round-trips into one'). It also clarifies its relationship to the sibling tools by describing each step as 'a normal tool call (compound like computer/window or a granular tool)', so an agent can distinguish this meta-tool from the single-capability siblings.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: use `expect` to 'guarantee you act on the right window/element instead of guessing', and set dryRun:true to pre-scan safety tiers without executing. It also states the halt semantics that govern when a batch is viable. It stops short of an explicit 'prefer batch over sequential calls when X' rule, so 4 rather than 5.

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