appium_batch

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds real context beyond that, disclosing the 25-step cap, the returned payload shape, and the default 10s element wait for taps/types. It does not explain what happens when a step fails mid-batch or whether partial mutation persists, which matters for a non-read-only tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then locator syntax, then timing behavior. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description states the return shape (per-step results plus screen summary), which covers the main gap. The step-variant semantics (e.g. what 'read' returns, 'until'/'timeoutSec' interaction) and failure behavior remain unspecified for a fairly complex nested 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 75% and the nested oneOf step variants carry no per-property descriptions, so the description compensates with genuinely additive detail: the locator prefix grammar (id=, desc=, text=, xpath=, uia=, pred=) appears nowhere in the schema. The wait-default and stopOnError/observeAfter defaults it mentions are already documented in the schema, so not every sentence adds meaning.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Run up to 25 steps (tap, type, wait, read, back, pause) in ONE call', plus what it returns ('per-step results plus a compact screen summary'). The batching scope makes it distinguishable from single-action siblings like appium_perform_actions or appium_find_element, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'in ONE call' framing implies this is for multi-step sequences rather than single interactions, but the description never states when to prefer it over appium_perform_actions or when a single-step tool is the better choice. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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