read_files_batch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses concurrent execution, the per-file return mapping, and that failures surface as structured error objects rather than aborting the batch. The one gap is that truncation behavior for max_bytes_per_file is never described.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core capability (batch concurrent read) is front-loaded before the return-shape and option details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description does not need to explain returns. Still, max_bytes_per_file is ambiguous everywhere (does it truncate, skip, or error?), and there is no routing guidance among the many sibling read/search tools, leaving meaningful gaps for a 3-parameter tool.

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 carry the burden. It does explain as_markdown (Markdown vs raw text) with the exact keyword form, but max_bytes_per_file and the rel_paths format are left entirely unexplained in both the description and the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (inspect), resource (multiple files), and a distinguishing scope (concurrently, single roundtrip). It is clearly differentiable from read_file/read_file_markdown by the batch semantics, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Batch usage is implied by 'multiple files concurrently in a single roundtrip', which tells an agent the general situation this fits. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus read_file or read_file_markdown, no batch-size guidance, and no stated exclusions.

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