batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses multiple traits: TCP relay, per-item result reporting, no rollback, undo merging on mutating segments, and a default max of 50 items with environment-variable clamp. This is comprehensive and adds significant context beyond the schema.

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 compact, well-structured paragraph where each sentence adds unique value. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully covers execution order, network behavior, undo integration, error reporting, and limits. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly without needing external documentation.

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 description does not explain the operations array structure or the continue_on_error flag. It mentions 'existing Houdini commands' and 'results item by item', which loosely implies error handling, but it does not clarify what each operation object should contain or how continue_on_error affects behavior.

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 clearly states '按顺序执行一批既有 Houdini command' (execute a batch of existing Houdini commands in order), specifying the verb (execute), resource (Houdini commands), and scope (batch). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on batch execution and even contrasts with 'bridge' to clarify its role.

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 explicitly contrasts with 'bridge' by saying batch does simple TCP relay while bridge pre-checks render policy, giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also notes the lack of transaction rollback, implying that batch is for non-atomic operations where per-item reporting is acceptable.

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