call_operators_batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that operators are run 'in order', but does not disclose whether execution is atomic, what happens on failure, whether results are returned, or if there are side effects beyond the operators themselves. The presence of an output schema (though its content is unseen) does not compensate for the lack of behavioral context in the description.

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 terse sentence, which is not appropriately sized for a tool with a non-trivial parameter structure and no other documentation. It is under-specified rather than concisely complete. While it is front-loaded with the main action, it omits critical details, so it earns a low score for structure.

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—one required parameter, no parameter description, no annotations, and no explanation of expected return values—the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to format the 'calls' argument, whether operators are invoked sequentially with dependency handling, or how errors are reported. The description does not suffice for reliable tool 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?

The schema defines a single required parameter 'calls' with no description and 0% schema coverage. The tool description says 'run multiple operators' but does not explain the structure of the 'calls' parameter—e.g., is it an array of operator call objects, and what fields do they contain? An agent cannot construct a valid call without additional information, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema's bare 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 the verb 'run' and resource 'multiple operators', and specifies ordering with 'in order'. This clearly conveys the core function and differentiates it from the singular 'call_operator' sibling. However, it does not explicitly name that sibling or elaborate on what constitutes an 'operator' in this context, so it is not a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'call_operator' for single operations and various batch tools (e.g., 'batch_render', 'batch_import'), but the description offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or criteria for choosing this over them. An agent cannot infer when batching is appropriate or how it differs from repeated 'call_operator' invocations.

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