bulk_aggregate_multi_files

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'parallel' processing but doesn't disclose error handling, performance characteristics, memory usage, or output format. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, what file formats are supported, or the implications of the 'parallel' processing. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without trial and error.

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%, providing good parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that aggregation happens 'across multiple files' which is already clear from the 'filePaths' parameter. No additional syntax, format, or constraint details are provided beyond what's in 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('aggregate') and resource ('same column across multiple files'), specifying the parallel processing aspect. It distinguishes from sibling 'aggregate' (which likely handles single files) by emphasizing multi-file processing, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction.

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-file column aggregation, suggesting when to use it over single-file tools. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling 'bulk_filter_multi_files' or other aggregation tools, and doesn't mention prerequisites like file format compatibility or performance considerations.

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