batch_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that 'cancel' is destructive but lacks details on prerequisites, reversibility, or permission requirements. The read-only modes are clear, but overall transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 efficiently structured with a header and bullet lists. Each mode is described succinctly in a sentence. No redundant or wasted wording.

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?

The description covers all modes and parameters; the presence of an output schema means return values are handled externally. Missing details about error handling or prerequisites, but overall complete for a multi-mode tool with good parameter mapping.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning by mapping parameters to specific modes (e.g., job_id for status/cancel, limit+status for recent). It also provides default values. This compensates well for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Monitor and manage batch processing jobs' and lists distinct modes (status, cancel, active, recent) with specific purposes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which likely focus on other domains.

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 provides clear context for when to use each mode (e.g., 'Get the status of a specific batch job' for status mode). However, it does not explicitly explain when not to use this tool vs. alternatives, though the distinct focus on batch jobs makes it unambiguous.

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