executar_lote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions parallel execution and the need for full tool names, but does not disclose failure semantics, partial failure behavior, side effects of executing multiple tools, permissions, or result format. This is a significant gap for a batch execution tool that may invoke arbitrary tools with potential side effects.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core verb and purpose. Each section (when to use, required format, example) earns its place, and the example improves clarity without excessive verbosity.

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?

The description covers the essential invocation details and example, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, it omits constraints like maximum batch size or behavior on individual tool failures, which are relevant for safe and effective use of a batch execution tool. Overall it is quite complete for typical use.

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 input schema for 'consultas' is essentially opaque (no property descriptions), so the description fully compensates by defining the exact structure of each item (required 'tool' and 'args' keys) and providing a clear example. This adds substantial meaning beyond 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?

The description states 'Executa múltiplas tools em uma única chamada, em paralelo', clearly identifying the verb, resource, and parallel execution mode. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'call_tool' by emphasizing batch execution of multiple tools in one call.

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?

It explicitly says when to use: 'para evitar chamadas sequenciais quando precisar de dados de várias fontes ou de vários anos/parâmetros ao mesmo tempo'. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'call_tool') for single calls, but the usage context is clear.

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