check_multiple

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses that checks are performed in parallel, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention any other important behaviors such as error handling, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only (though checking status implies no mutation). The parallelism is a positive addition, but more context would be beneficial.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose and a second sentence providing a usage benefit. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. The key information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and its advantage. However, it lacks details on failure modes or output format, which might be needed for an agent to handle it correctly. Still, for a straightforward batch status check, it is adequate.

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 coverage for the single parameter 'services' is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only repeats 'specific list of services'. No extra syntax, formatting, or constraints are described.

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's action: 'Check the live status of a specific list of services in parallel.' It specifies the resource (live status of services), the verb (check), and the scope (specific list, in parallel). Additionally, it distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it is faster than calling get_status repeatedly.

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 provides a usage guideline by comparing with get_status: 'Faster than calling get_status repeatedly.' This implies the tool should be used when checking multiple services instead of calling get_status individually. However, it does not explicitly exclude other siblings like get_all_status or list_services, leaving some ambiguity.

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