fleet_delegate_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It reveals the asynchronous contract (immediate job_id + polling), parallel execution, node-tier overflow behavior, and output_pattern templating. It does not cover failure modes, permissions, or side effects, but the key runtime behavior is disclosed.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: main behavior + async flow, output_pattern syntax, and category routing. Front-loaded with the core operation before details.

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 batch tool with no output schema and no annotations, this covers the essential call flow, polling target, scheduling, and output naming. It omits some parameter semantics (overwrite/context) and failure details, but provides enough for an agent to make a correct first 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?

Schema coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning for output_pattern by listing placeholders and giving an example, and for category by mapping each enum value to node routing. Other parameters like overwrite and context remain undocumented, but the most complex ones are explained.

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 action ('apply the same instruction to many files in parallel across all nodes') and the async resource ('returns a job_id; poll fleet_job'). This clearly differentiates from sibling fleet_delegate by emphasizing many files, parallelism, and batch semantics.

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 concrete guidance on scheduling categories (complex/code → GPU, tests/scripts/build/docs → light nodes, general → any, auto → keyword guess) and tells the agent to poll fleet_job after receiving the job_id. It does not explicitly state when to prefer fleet_delegate for a single file, so no exclusion/alternative is named.

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