Get Batch Details

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

Annotations cover key traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description doesn't need to repeat these. It adds value by specifying that details include 'all contained transactions', which clarifies the scope of returned data. However, it lacks additional context like rate limits, authentication needs, or error behaviors.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get details') and resource. There's no wasted text, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 annotations provide safety and behavioral hints, and the schema fully documents the single parameter, the description is adequate for a read-only tool. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail the structure of returned batch details or transactions, leaving a gap in understanding the response format.

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%, with the parameter 'batch_id' documented as 'Resource ID'. The description doesn't add further meaning beyond implying it's for a 'sequencer batch', which is already inferred from the tool name. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra param 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a sequencer batch including all contained transactions'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_get_object' or 'dual_list_batches', which might retrieve similar data but with different scopes or formats.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a batch ID from 'dual_list_batches', or compare it to siblings like 'dual_get_object' for transaction details. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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