delegate_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses parallel execution and the per-job result shape, but it does not mention failure behavior, partial results, timeouts, side effects of running worker jobs, or resource/cost implications.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the return behavior is stated in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is moderately complex due to nested job fields, yet the description is thin on edge-case behavior and sibling differentiation. The schema fills in field-level details, but the absence of annotations and output schema leaves gaps around failure handling and when to prefer this over 'delegate.'

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does little to compensate: it only restates that jobs are 'independent worker jobs.' It does not explain the job structure, tier semantics, file loading, write_to behavior, or max_tokens, even though the nested schema does describe these.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Run several independent worker jobs in parallel' and states the return behavior: 'Returns one result block per job.' The plural and 'parallel' wording clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'delegate' and from 'worker_stats'.

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 gives clear context: this is for several independent jobs that can safely run in parallel. It does not explicitly name 'delegate' as the single-job alternative or list when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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