parallel_command_run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is set; the description adds genuinely new behavior: per-command process isolation, scheduler slots, audit request ids, separate stdout/stderr, and a hard timeout cap of 240000 ms that the schema's maximum does not express. It stops short of describing permissions/allowlist failure modes, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Two tight sentences: the capability plus constraints first, then the routing decision. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

With no output schema, the description does useful work by stating each command yields its own stdout/stderr and result, covering the return shape at a high level. It leaves the `agent` attribution parameter and partial-failure semantics (what happens if one of 32 commands fails) unexplained, which is the remaining gap for a batch mutation tool.

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 50%, and the description compensates partially by restating the 2-32 command range and, more usefully, revealing a 240000 ms effective timeout cap that the schema maximum does not. It says nothing about the nested per-command fields (id, cwd, args) or the `agent` binding, so half the parameter surface remains unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run ... commands concurrently'), names the execution mode (parallel, allowlisted), and quantifies scope (2-32). It is immediately distinguishable from the sequential command_run sibling.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: 'Use this instead of sequential command_run calls when commands do not depend on each other.' That names the alternative and the exact condition that selects it, which is the strongest form of usage guidance.

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