ensp_diagnose_batch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes only the returned content (per-command diagnosis plus aggregated fix suggestions) and says nothing about side effects, whether it is read-only, auth requirements, or cost — and the return content is already covered by the output schema.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the input source is front-loaded. Efficient, though it is arguably too terse for a tool with two undocumented parameters.

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 presence of an output schema removes any need to explain return values, which the description correctly does not belabor. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the definition is incomplete: the session parameter and any behavioral profile are undocumented.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It adds meaning only for `command_results` (the `results` list from `ensp_send_commands`); `session_id_or_name` is never explained, leaving the caller to guess its valid values and whether it identifies a session by id or name.

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 a specific verb+resource: batch diagnosis of batch command results. It also anchors the input to the `results` list produced by `ensp_send_commands`, which pins down exactly what this tool consumes. It does not explicitly contrast itself with `ensp_diagnose_error`, so differentiation from that sibling is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool clearly runs after `ensp_send_commands` on its result list. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. `ensp_diagnose_error` for single errors), so the agent must infer the routing itself.

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