batch_analyze

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions only the basic operation (fetching analyses) and a schema-detailed error for ambiguous symbols. Missing context includes: that the operation is read-only (implied but not stated), performance benefits of batching, error behavior for invalid positions, return format, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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: two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose, and the second sentence provides a key usage hint (include parameter). Every word serves a purpose, and the structure makes the tool's action immediately clear.

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?

Despite high schema coverage, the description lacks completeness given the tool's complexity and many sibling tools. No information is given about return values, error handling beyond ambiguous symbols, prerequisites (e.g., open project), performance trade-offs, or when to use this vs. individual analysis tools. For an agent evaluating multiple similar tools, this description leaves many operational questions unanswered.

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 is 100% with both parameters meaningfully documented. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema: it explains that the include parameter selects analyses (with default all) and reiterates the purpose of positions for multiple positions. Since the schema already provides comprehensive descriptions (enum values, disambiguation syntax), the description provides minimal incremental semantic clarity, fitting a baseline score of 3.

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: 'Get hover, definition, references, diagnostics, and signature for multiple positions in one call.' It specifies a concrete verb ('Get') and resource (multiple analysis types across multiple positions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hover (single analysis, single position) and analyze_position (all analyses, single position). The list of analyses explicitly differentiates from other batch or individual 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?

The description implies use when you need multiple positions or select analyses via the include parameter. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use batch_analyze over alternatives like calling individual tools sequentially or using analyze_position. No comparisons or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer the best use case without clear direction.

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