send_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the atomic nature, Solana exclusivity, and instruction count range, but does not detail failure modes, gas behavior, or return values. This is adequate but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and constraints. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool has a nested input schema and no output schema, but the description does not mention return values or expected output. It covers key input constraints (Solana, size) but misses guidance on what the agent should expect after execution. For a tool of this complexity, this is a notable gap.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds value by explaining the atomic batch context, the allowed instruction types (TRANSFER/TOKEN_TRANSFER etc.), and the unit requirements (wei/lamports). This goes beyond what the schema alone provides, earning a score above baseline.

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 purpose: 'Send multiple instructions in a single atomic transaction (Solana only, 2-20 instructions).' It specifies the verb (send), resource (multiple instructions), and key constraints (atomic, Solana only, instruction count range), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like send_token or sign_transaction.

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 clear context: it is for Solana only and handles 2-20 instructions atomically. While it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives, the constraints are well-defined and help the agent decide when to invoke this tool vs. singe-instruction tools.

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