batch

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint, so the description carries the load and does: per-step output framing ('## step <n>: <tool>'), images retained, skipped-step listing on failure, truncation behavior with the exact cut marker, and the no-nesting rule. These are non-obvious traits an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then failure and truncation semantics, with no filler. A few phrases are compressed to the point of ambiguity — 'the rest is shared' and 'a cut step ends with' require a second read.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return framing and truncation, which is the right thing to cover. It leaves open whether batched steps share session state and how errors from an individual step are surfaced when stop_on_error is false.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description defines both parameters: steps as [{tool, args}] with a 50-item ceiling, and stop_on_error with its default (true) and concrete effect (remaining steps listed as skipped). This fully compensates for the undocumented schema.

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 with scope: 'Run up to 50 tool calls sequentially in one call.' The meta-tool nature is immediately distinguishable from every browser-action sibling (click, navigate, snapshot), and the step shape is shown inline.

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 sequential, single-call framing plus the 'cannot nest' restriction gives clear context for when this applies, and stop_on_error's default defines failure handling. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative (e.g. issuing calls individually or in parallel) or stating when not to batch.

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