Batch

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important runtime behavior: execution stops at first failure unless continue_on_error is set, and results are capped at 60000 characters, causing early stopping and truncation reporting. This adds real operational context beyond readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 three dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers failure handling, use case, and a concrete limit. Every sentence 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 description covers ordering, tab propagation, error behavior, truncation limits, and practical usage. Because there is no output schema, the description could have said a bit more about the exact result shape, but it does state that results exist and can be truncated. This is nearly complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds useful context by explaining 'passing the same tab through' and by mentioning max_chars for reading steps, but it does not substantially deepen per-parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run several tools in order in one call, passing the same tab through.' This clearly defines batch orchestration and distinguishes it from the individual browser-action sibling tools. The example 'fill, fill, click, wait' reinforces the intended function.

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 explicitly recommends the tool for cutting round trips and gives a concrete sequence. It also implies when to avoid a single batch by warning that read-heavy sequences should be split or constrained with max_chars. It does not name an alternative tool, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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