governance_preflight_parallel_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly notes that no agents, models, or network are started, which is a key safety trait. However, it does not describe what validation checks are performed or whether any side effects like logging occur.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, earning its place. It is concise while conveying the core purpose and key limitation.

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 the existence of an output schema, the input parameters are unexplained and the nature of the validation is vague. The tool's overall behavior and configuration are not sufficiently described for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 for the four parameters (packets, max_workers, declared_costs_usd, aggregate_cost_ceiling_usd). The agent must infer their semantics solely from names, which is insufficient.

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 'validate' with a specific resource 'a parallel batch', and the qualifier 'without starting agents, models, or network' distinguishes it from dispatch or execution tools. It is immediately clear this is a dry-run validation tool.

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 usage for preflight validation without side effects, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over sibling tools like governance_validate_task_packet or governance_prepare_codex_dispatch, nor does it list exclusions.

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