zen_batch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies sequential execution and speed benefits but does not disclose failure behavior, atomicity, rate limits, or idempotency. This leaves gaps about what happens when a command fails.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, followed by parameter details, a list of actions, and an example. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the complexity of multiple actions and no output schema, the description covers usage well but lacks information about the return format (e.g., array of results per command) and error handling. This is a notable gap for a tool that chains multiple commands.

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 input schema provides minimal detail (array of objects with additionalProperties), but the description compensates excellently: it explains each command is a dict with 'action' and parameters, lists available actions, and gives a concrete example. Schema coverage is 0% so the description does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Run multiple commands in a single request for speed.' It identifies the resource (commands) and action (run multiple), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool zen_parallel by mentioning concurrency differences.

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 provides an explicit alternative: 'For true concurrency across tabs, prefer zen_parallel.' It also explains how to target specific tabs with tabId. However, it does not specify when not to use batch versus individual action tools.

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