ps_execute_batch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: batch execution under a frame, sequential/parallel modes, and stop-on-failure option. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like error handling details, performance implications of parallel execution, or what constitutes a 'failure' (e.g., tool errors vs. validation failures).

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 perfectly concise at two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds crucial behavioral context about execution modes. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (batch execution with multiple parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the high-level purpose and key behavioral aspects, but doesn't address important details like return values, error formats, or performance considerations that would be needed for robust agent usage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context by mentioning 'sequential or parallel execution' (relating to the 'parallel' parameter) and 'optional stop-on-failure' (relating to 'stopOnFirstFailure'), but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Execute multiple actions under a single frame. Supports sequential or parallel execution with optional stop-on-failure.' It specifies the verb ('execute'), resource ('multiple actions'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ps_execute (single action) and ps_execute_dry_run (simulated execution).

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 usage: 'Execute multiple actions under a single frame' implies this is for batch operations, and 'Supports sequential or parallel execution with optional stop-on-failure' gives guidance on execution modes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like ps_execute or ps_validate_batch, though the batch nature is implied.

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