cu_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the sequence is bounded and fail-fast, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not explain what happens on failure, whether steps are atomic, or the nature of state_id, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 sentence, front-loaded with key modifiers ('bounded', 'fail-fast', 'against one app'). Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 having an output schema, the tool is complex with five parameters and no annotations. The description does not explain how to construct steps, what state_id refers to, or how this tool relates to sibling operations, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It hints at 'bounded' (max_actions) and 'fail-fast' (fail_fast), but does not explain the structure of steps, the purpose of state_id, or the app parameter, leaving most parameters underdocumented.

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 runs a bounded, fail-fast action sequence against one app. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like cu_act (single action) and cu_observe (observation).

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 for multi-step actions within one app and highlights bounded/fail-fast behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cu_act or provide exclusions.

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