rlm_multi_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a 'shared token budget' but does not specify side effects, idempotency, or rate limits. Critical aspects like what happens when the budget is exceeded are omitted.

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, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks structure and could benefit from breaking down usage or behavior. It is acceptable but does not earn full marks for being optimally structured.

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 no output schema and two parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format, error handling, or behavior under token constraints. A batch query tool requires more context for proper invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'shared token budget' but does not explain that the top-level max_tokens is the total budget or how per-query max_tokens interacts. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema structure.

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 executes multiple queries with a shared token budget. The verb 'execute' and resource 'multiple queries' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like rlm_context_query or rlm_multi_project_query, which may cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, when not to use it, or prerequisites. The description is purely functional with no comparative direction.

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