tool_batch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, but the description adds rich behavioral details: runtime rejection of mutation/recursion, bounded concurrency with order preservation, projectId override, and output metadata (latency, per-op duration). No contradiction with annotations.

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 informative and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value, covering error modes, concurrency, output, and project isolation. Could be trimmed but remains effective.

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?

For a complex tool with 7 parameters and nested ops, the description is thorough. It covers batching semantics, concurrency, error handling, output format (label, duration, summary latency), and project override. Output schema exists but description still adds context. No gaps noted.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the key parameters (ops, maxOps, projectId, verbosity, maxConcurrency, continueOnError) and their effects, such as compact vs full modes and error handling behavior. It lacks a bit of detail on projectRef but overall provides meaningful semantics.

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 precisely states the tool is a 'Read-only batching wrapper for independent Mako lookups', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools by mentioning reduction of round-trips after context_packet expansions.

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 explains when to use (after context_packet recommends expansions), constraints on input tools, and details of continueOnError, maxConcurrency, verbosity, and resultMode. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use but implies via runtime checks.

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