aetre_batch_triage

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does mention 'disclosed, uncalibrated' indicators and outlines the output streams, but it fails to state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or what error conditions might arise. The absence of any description of return formatting or side effects leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 dense sentence with the primary action ('Batch applies...') front-loaded. It efficiently packs three output types and stream names into one clause, with no filler words. It is appropriately sized given the complexity, though it could be slightly clearer with a bulleted 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?

For a batch tool with no output schema, the description should explicitly state what the agent receives in return. It names computed ranks and streams but does not describe the output structure, pagination, error handling, or any limitations. Given no annotations, the description falls short of what is needed to call the tool confidently.

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 three parameters. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only rephrasing the 'cohort' as proposals and implying the selection boundary without providing syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high coverage but adds little value.

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 action (batch applies disclosed, uncalibrated lexical indicators) and the resource (a cohort), and lists the specific computational outputs (heuristic ranks, VOI ranks, and stream allocation with named streams). It distinguishes itself from siblings via the 'Batch' prefix, though it does not explicitly contrast with aetre_triage_proposal or other related tools.

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 such as aetre_triage_proposal or aetre_calculate_voi. The description does not mention conditions, exclusions, or criteria for choosing batch over single-proposal processing, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name.

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