List Sequencer Batches

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive behavioral hints (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds useful context about what batches are and their purpose (ZK-rollup anchoring), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what annotations cover.

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 - two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and provide valuable context about batches. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted space.

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 rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), 100% schema coverage, and simple pagination parameters, the description provides adequate context. The main gap is lack of output information (no output schema), but for a list operation with good annotations, this is acceptable. A perfect score would require addressing the sibling tool differentiation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters (limit with range/default, next as cursor). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('sequencer batches'), and provides additional context about what batches are ('group multiple transactions for efficient on-chain anchoring via ZK-rollup'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_get_batch' or 'dual_batch_actions', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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. With sibling tools like 'dual_get_batch' (singular) and 'dual_batch_actions' available, there's no indication whether this is for listing all batches, filtered batches, or how it differs from other batch-related tools.

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