Run Batch OMP Tasks with DAG and Compact Aggregated Result (Preferred for Multi-task)

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond what annotations provide: it reveals the bounded rolling pool (max_parallel 1-10), dependency DAG enforcement, write-ownership safety, wait timeout with completion or partial result handling, and return of group_id for follow-up. Annotations only indicate destructive and open-world hints, so the description significantly enhances transparency.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, describing the submission, execution constraints, and timeout behavior. It is optimally concise.

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 (8 parameters, DAG, safety, timeout) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main behavior thoroughly. It explains the batch submission, concurrent execution, dependency enforcement, and timeout handling. Minor gaps exist (e.g., error handling for failed tasks), but the output schema likely addresses return values, making the description largely complete.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description mentions max_parallel and wait_seconds ranges but mainly provides behavioral context rather than new parameter-level meaning. It does not add insight beyond what the schema already provides.

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 submits a decomposed group of OMP tasks with dependency DAG and write-ownership safety, and returns compact aggregated results. The verb 'submits' and resource 'batch of OMP tasks' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like omp_run_compact, relying on the title's 'Preferred for Multi-task' which is not part of the description.

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 implies usage for multi-task batches by mentioning 'decomposed group' and a 'detached group runner', and suggests follow-up with omp_wait_group if incomplete. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., omp_run_compact for single tasks) or when not to use it.

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