radql_batch_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the parallel execution efficiency benefit and provides a concrete example use case. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling for partial failures, or what the output format looks like (especially critical since there's no output schema).

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 perfectly concise and well-structured with just two sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides a concrete use case example. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 the complexity (batch query execution with nested parameter structure) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. While it explains the 'why' (efficiency for related data fetching), it doesn't address critical contextual information like expected return format, error behavior, or performance considerations. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'queries' parameter and its nested structure. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute multiple RadQL queries in parallel for efficiency.' It specifies the verb ('execute'), resource ('RadQL queries'), and key behavior ('in parallel'). It also distinguishes from siblings by explaining this is for batch/parallel execution rather than single queries, unlike tools like 'radql_query' or 'radql_query_builder'.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Useful for fetching related data from different data types simultaneously (e.g., container details + vulnerabilities + network connections).' This gives a specific use case scenario. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like the single-query 'radql_query' tool, which would be helpful for complete guidance.

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