core.batch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint=false, and the description usefully confirms and explains that only read-only tools are executed. It adds result ordering (input id order) and per-item status values (ok, error, timeout), but says nothing about how max_workers or deterministic change execution behavior, or what happens when some items fail.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then constraints, then the sibling redirect. No filler, though the timeout sentence packs both the status model and two timeout params into a way that makes the two undocumented params easy to miss.

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?

Return shape need not be explained since an output schema exists, yet the description still covers ordering and status codes. For a 5-param orchestration tool, the remaining gap is the semantics of max_workers and deterministic, which no structured field covers.

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 0% and the items property is an untyped object with additionalProperties:true, so the description's breakdown (id, tool, args) is essential and well beyond the schema. It also explains item_timeout_s and batch_timeout_s, but leaves max_workers and deterministic completely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("서로 독립인 도구 호출 N개를 병렬 실행한다") and immediately names the semantic boundary versus core.pipeline (independent vs. dependent items). An agent can distinguish batch from pipeline without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use core.pipeline when later inputs depend on earlier results, implying core.batch is for independent calls. It also gives hard constraints (max 500 items, unique ids, read-only tools only) that act as when-not conditions.

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