Batch: one analysis route over many files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 20-item cap, the per-item ok/data/error return shape, and the metering rule that each item counts as one call. It omits failure semantics (e.g. whether one bad item aborts the batch) and auth/permission requirements.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and cap, then return shape, routes, and use cases. No filler; every clause carries operational information.

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 batch dispatcher with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers scope (20 items), return structure (per-item ok/data/error), metering, route enumeration, and source types. An agent has what it needs to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real value the schema does not: it enumerates the valid endpoint routes (mixlab/analyze, check-target, timeseries, spectrum, voicelab/qa, segments, signallab/index) and the source types (https URLs and local paths) that map to the urls/paths parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (run one analysis route) and resource (up to 20 audio sources in a single call), and distinguishes itself from siblings by being the batch wrapper that dispatches to the routes those siblings expose individually.

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?

Gives concrete use cases (folder QA, library indexing, checking a whole release against a loudness target) and names the default route, so an agent knows when the batch path applies. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g. single-file work should call the individual sibling tools), so it isn't a full 5.

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