batch

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

Annotations already signal readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it delegates to other tools, is read-only, and returns a JSON structure of batch_results. This informs the agent of the delegation behavior and output shape without contradicting the 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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, when to use, and return format. It is front-loaded and avoids fluf or redundant schema repetition.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the return JSON is described well, and the read-only/delegation behavior is stated. The description could also cover per-call error propagation or ordering guarantees, but these are minor given the tools's simple batch semantics and strong 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%, so the baseline is satisfied; the description goes further by showing what kinds of calls to batch with examples like 'get_outline for 3 files' and 'search + get_symbol together.' This makes the calls parameter more tangible without repeating the schema details.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'execute multiple trace-mcp tools in a single MCP request.' It clearly identifies the tool as a batching/composite operation, distinguishing it from the individual sibling tools by its aggregation behavior.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'reduce round-trips when you need several independent queries' and gives concrete examles such as 'get_outline for 3 files, or search + get_symbol together.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is clear.

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