jumpserver_batch

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

Adds real behavioral detail beyond the annotations: target affinity ordering ('all commands of a target run before the next target is entered') and per-entry static classification, which is non-obvious and affects how commands are authored. There is a mild tension with destructiveHint=true — the tool is flagged destructive while the description instructs read-only commands — but that reads as caller guidance rather than a claim about the tool's capability, so it is not a contradiction.

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 dense sentences: the first front-loads purpose and scope, the second carries the authoring constraints. No filler, no restatement of the title or schema.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does note that results come back per command, which is the key return-behavior signal for a batch tool. The approval gate (confirm -> COMMAND_APPROVAL_REQUIRED) is only explained in the schema, so the description is slightly thin on the destructive-execution workflow, but it is otherwise adequate for correct invocation.

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 100%, so target, timeout (max 600), accountIndex and commands are already documented at the schema level. The description adds one rule not present in the schema (exactly one simple command per entry, no shell metacharacters), but otherwise does not enrich the parameters further.

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 ('Run') and resource ('simple commands') plus the scope that makes it distinct: 'across one or more targets in a single call'. This implicitly separates it from single-target siblings like jumpserver_exec/jumpserver_run, but no sibling is named, so an agent still has to infer which one to prefer.

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 gives strong in-call constraints (one simple read-only command per commands[] entry, no loops/branches/substitution/chained redirection, each entry statically classified), which tells the agent how to compose input. It does not, however, say when to choose batch over jumpserver_exec/jumpserver_run or when multi-target batching is inappropriate.

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