conduyt_list_batch_operations

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It gives the useful disclosure that results are ordered newest-first and what fields come back, but says nothing about pagination defaults, whether listing is scoped to the calling user, permission requirements, or how many runs typically exist — all of which matter for a batch-job listing tool with no 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — the operation verb and ordering come first, then the return payload. The parenthetical field enumeration is dense but each item earns its place by documenting the return shape.

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, so the description's enumeration of returned fields (task, status, totals and progress, creator, comment) is exactly what an agent otherwise couldn't know, and paging parameters are covered by the schema. Only the absence of permission/scoping and total-count context keeps it short of complete.

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 the schema already documents page, limit, status and createdBy with defaults and constraints; the baseline of 3 applies. The description only echoes the status enum (and even then in the context of returned fields, not as a filter), adding no filter or paging semantics the schema does not already provide.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List Run Batch runs') plus ordering ('newest first'), and enumerates the fields returned (task, status, totals/progress, creator, comment). That makes it clearly distinct from the sibling mutators (create_batch_operation, cancel_batch_operation, get_batch_operation), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read path over batch jobs because the verb is 'List'. There is no statement of when to prefer it over conduyt_get_batch_operation for a single job, no mention of filtering by status or createdBy, and no guidance about paging through large result sets.

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