omnia_evaluate_batch

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that it persists audit records and expires records under retention. This complements the destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false annotations without contradiction, providing useful side-effect information for an agent.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action 'Evaluate a batch' and appends two side-effect clauses. It contains no wasted words and is structurally efficient, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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 the tool (batch evaluation with multiple question types, policies, and evidence), the description is far too sparse. It does not explain when to use it versus single evaluation, expected outcomes, or how the batch relates to other tools. While an output schema exists, the description itself is inadequate 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 0%, meaning the description provides no explanation of the 'request' parameter or its nested structure. The schema itself is self-documenting with types and constraints, but the description fails to add any semantic meaning, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the raw schema without guidance.

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 a specific verb 'Evaluate', a resource 'a batch', and adds concrete side effects (persist audit records, expire under retention). The word 'batch' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling omnia_evaluate, which likely handles a single evaluation, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 multiple evaluations via the word 'batch' but does not explicitly compare against omnia_evaluate or omnia_get_decision. There is no guidance on when not to use this tool, nor any mention of prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context.

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