tb_batch_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only 'query' operation and mentions 'bounded', but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limiting, or the exact nature of the summaries. The phrase 'for recovery without messaging' hints at a non-messaging behavior but leaves many behavioral aspects unclear.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key action and purpose. It avoids verbosity and is appropriately short, though it sacrifices some detail that might be expected for a complex tool.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain the meaning of key parameters, filtering options, pagination, or return format. For a tool of this complexity, the description needs to provide significantly more context to be useful.

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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the purpose of required parameters like board_id and actor, nor optional ones like cursor, limit, status, etc. The one-sentence description provides no parameter context, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('task status summaries'), and includes a distinct purpose ('for recovery without messaging'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like tb_status (single task) and tb_query, though it doesn't explicitly mention 'batch' or name alternatives.

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 clear context ('recovery without messaging') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives nor mention exclusions. It implies a specific use case but lacks guidance on when not to use it, such as for interactive queries or when messaging is required.

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