Batch Prompt CLI Agents

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining the internal parallel execution mechanism ('asyncio.gather and a semaphore') and that it is a single MCP call. While annotations include destructiveHint=true, the description does not elaborate on destructiveness, but it does not contradict them. The added implementation detail justifies a 4.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by implementation detail and usage guidance. Every sentence is necessary and non-redundant, achieving maximum efficiency.

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?

The description covers the core behavior and differentiation from siblings. An output schema exists, so return format is assumed covered. However, it lacks details on error handling, partial failures, or the implications of destructiveHint, which would enhance completeness for a batch tool. Still, it is largely sufficient.

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 67%, and the input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters. The tool description itself does not add additional meaning beyond stating the tool sends multiple prompts. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool sends multiple prompts to CLI runners in parallel, using 'fans out tasks server-side' and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'prompt' tool. The verb 'send' and resource 'multiple prompts' are specific, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 tells when to use this tool ('primary tool' for multiple prompts) and when to use the sibling 'prompt' ('convenience when sending one task'). It provides clear context and alternatives, leaving no ambiguity.

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