Check a saved batch's child plan IDs, partial progress, and stop reason to understand why processing halted.
Inspect saved batch, child plan IDs, partial progress and stop reason.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| batchId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering side effects. The description adds value by specifying the data aspects returned (child plan IDs, partial progress, stop reason) but does not disclose error handling or response format, which is acceptable given the annotation coverage.
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, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb 'Inspect' and packs key specifics, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and data returned. However, it omits guidance on when to use it relative to siblings and does not describe response shape or error behavior, leaving notable gaps for an agent to infer.
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 0% and the description does not explain the batchId parameter beyond its self-evident name. It implies the batchId identifies the saved batch but provides no additional details about semantics, constraints, or usage beyond the schema pattern.
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 uses a specific verb 'Inspect' and identifies the resource ('saved batch') plus distinctive details (child plan IDs, partial progress, stop reason). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like billy_batch_execute or billy_batch_refresh by emphasizing inspection, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as billy_status or billy_get. The description only states what the tool does without contextual cues for selection or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.