omniseek_gather

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: execution is parallel, failures are independent, calls may continue as background threads after wait_s, warming status is reported, and signature mismatches produce hints. This goes well beyond what the bare schema could convey.

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 longer than average, but the length is justified by the orchestration behavior and return formats. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses labeled sections for calls, wait_s, and return value, though a few phrases like 'the agent decides WHAT to call (judgment)' add flavor but not essential 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 complex tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers input format, constraints, timeout semantics, background execution, return shape, and error hints. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 0% and the schema is generic, but the description defines both parameters concretely: calls as a list of {tool, args} objects with a max of 10, and wait_s as a patience budget with a default behavior. The example makes the expected structure unambiguous.

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 leads with a specific, action-oriented statement: 'Run N independent read-only eye tools IN PARALLEL, returning results in one response.' This clearly identifies the tool as a parallel orchestrator for read-only tools, and the example using omniseek_search plus the list of sibling read tools makes it distinguishable from single-call siblings like omniseek_read and omniseek_search.

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 clear conditions for use: independent calls, read-only tools only, max 10, and it explicitly says dependent calls belong in a separate gather. It does not name a specific sibling as the alternative for single calls, but the separation guidance and read-only restriction provide enough context to choose correctly.

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