batch

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds that it delegates to other tools, returns results for all calls, and specifies the return JSON format. No contradictions; adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Three clear sentences, each adding value: purpose, usage guidance, and return format. Front-loaded with the core action. No fluff; every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, description specifies return format (JSON with batch_results and total). Covers purpose, usage, safety (read-only), and output structure. Could mention result-order preservation or error handling, but adequate for a batching tool with good annotations.

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 descriptions for 'calls', 'tool', and 'args'. Description adds usage context and return format but doesn't elaborate on parameter details beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as description adds marginal value.

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?

Clearly states 'Execute multiple trace-mcp tools in a single MCP request' (verb+resource) and distinguishes from individual get_* or search tools. The benefit (reducing round-trips) is explicitly mentioned, making it specific and differentiated from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'Use to reduce round-trips when you need several independent queries' with examples (e.g., get_outline for 3 files, or search + get_symbol together). It implies when to use (multiple independent queries) but could explicitly exclude dependent queries; still clear overall.

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