mz_run_batch

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it generates .bat files, runs them in the background, and leaves the .bat files in the workdir for inspection or manual re-run. It also explains the wait parameter controls synchronous waiting and timeout applies when wait=True. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does a good job.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core behavior (batch sequential execution, .bat generation, background running). The Args section is structured and readable. It could be slightly more concise, but 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?

For a tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what it does, where artifacts go, how wait/timeout work, and how to interpret the shared parameters. It doesn't describe return values or error behavior, but the core invocation context is complete enough for an agent to use it 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 explains setups (absolute paths, executed in order), workdir (defaults to first setup's directory), wait (whether to synchronously wait for the whole batch), timeout (waiting limit in seconds when wait=True), and defers engine/engine_flag/mpi/gpu/priority/extra_args to mz_run. This covers most parameters meaningfully, though year is only mentioned as 'optional, specify MIKE Zero year' without deeper detail.

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: batch sequential execution of multiple setups, generating .bat files (DHI official approach) and running them in the background. It distinguishes itself from mz_run by explicitly mentioning batch execution of multiple setups and the .bat generation behavior.

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 explains when to use this tool (for batch sequential execution of multiple setups) and references mz_run for parameter semantics. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the batch context is clear enough for an agent to differentiate from the single-run sibling mz_run.

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