batch

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the aggregation rule ('ok is false if ANY step failed') and how data.succeeded/data.failed vs count/total are counted. It does not discuss per-step error isolation or permission needs, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the latency benefit. Each sentence carries information, though the middle return-semantics sentence is dense and slightly run-on.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return semantics, and it does so reasonably (ok flag, succeeded/failed counts, count/total distinction). For a batch meta-tool it is nearly complete; it could say more about partial-failure handling 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by clarifying that session applies to every step ('Pass session to run every step against a named debug session'), and implies steps are an ordered sequence. stop_on_error is left to the 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+resource ('Runs several tool calls in ONE round trip') and reinforces it with a concrete example (read registers + backtrace + several variables). It is clearly a batching/meta-tool, but it never names the single-call sibling (call/call_read) it contrasts against, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Gives clear context for when to reach for it ('the fastest way to do a sequence of operations... without per-call latency') with an illustrative use case. It does not state any when-not condition or explicitly point to the alternative single-call tool for one-off invocations.

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