computer_batch

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds a useful behavioral detail: it returns every step's text and images in order, which is not covered by annotations. However, it does not elaborate on side effects beyond the example, and it omits the 'stopping at the first error' behavior that appears in the schema description. The added context is modest but not contradictory.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately states the purpose, provides a clarifying example, and mentions the return format. There is zero waste, and the core concept is front-loaded. It earns its place without redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and rich schema documentation, the description is nearly complete. It clarifies the batching concept and the output (text and images in order). Given the openWorld and destructive annotations, it lacks an explicit warning about real-world impact, but that is covered by the annotations. The only minor gap is the error-handling behavior, which is already in the schema, so the description is adequate.

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?

The schema provides 100% description coverage for the single 'actions' parameter, including the exact format ({name, input}) and allowed names. The tool description adds a concrete example sequence but does not convey any semantic information beyond what the schema already specifies. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Run') and a clear resource ('several steps in one round trip'), with concrete examples (click, type, press Return, wait, screenshot) that immediately convey the tool's function. It clearly distinguishes itself from the individual sibling tools by emphasizing batching, so an agent can tell it apart from computer, read_screen, etc.

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 implies usage context: use this when you want to execute multiple steps in a single round trip, as opposed to calling individual tools sequentially. It provides a concrete example of a multi-step sequence. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., if you need conditional logic or to inspect intermediate results), leaving the exclusion criteria to inference.

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