consult_openrouter_batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions concurrent execution and individual timeout preferences, but does not address read-only behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. The tool is likely read-only (querying), but this is not explicitly stated, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 reasonably concise at 9 lines with an Args section. It front-loads the purpose and follows with parameter details. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'JSON' mentioned twice) but generally efficient.

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 has 3 parameters (2 required, 1 optional with default), no enums, and an output schema exists (so return details are less critical), the description covers the essential input parameters and behavior. It mentions concurrent processing and consolidated JSON output, which is sufficient for a batch query tool. Missing details like error handling are not critical given the richness of the description.

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 compensate. It documents that 'queries' is a list of dicts with keys 'query' (required) and 'timeout' (optional), and states that 'format' only supports 'json' for batch. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema definition, though 'directory' is only briefly described as 'Working directory'.

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 starts with 'Consult multiple OpenRouter queries in batch' using a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'consult_openrouter' (single query) and 'consult_openrouter_with_stdin' (stdin input) by emphasizing the batch aspect and concurrent processing.

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 explicitly recommends the tool for 'CI/CD automation' and explains that it processes multiple prompts concurrently. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare directly to siblings, the context is clear enough to imply batch usage scenarios.

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