batch

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 restates that multiple commands are executed in one daemon request; it does not explain execution order, failure handling, response aggregation, or the meaning of responseLevel/onError. The schema hints at these behaviors, but the description itself adds no meaningful behavioral context.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. It states the core action and scope immediately, which is ideal for a tool whose detailed parameter semantics are already captured in the schema.

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?

Despite a rich schema, this is a complex 27-parameter aggregation tool with no output schema. The description does not explain how results from multiple commands are returned, how errors are aggregated, or what sequencing/ordering guarantees exist. One sentence is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate batch behavior.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 27 parameters, so the description does not need to explain each parameter. However, it also adds no extra semantic value beyond 'multiple commands' and 'daemon request', which are already obvious from the tool name and steps schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Execute multiple commands in one daemon request' uses a specific verb (execute) and resource (multiple commands in a daemon request), clearly distinguishing it from sibling single-command tools. It immediately communicates that this is a batching/aggregation tool.

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 description provides clear context for use: when you want to run multiple commands in a single daemon request rather than invoking them individually. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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