batch_render

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and clearly discloses that the tool is not implemented, will always return an error with a fixed format, and includes the exact error structure. It also explains planned architecture, which is extra context beyond the minimal stub behavior.

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 first sentence and return format are concise, but the 'Day 2/3 work' paragraph contains speculative implementation details that are not essential for an agent using the tool. This adds mild bloat to an otherwise well-structured stub description.

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 not-implemented stub, the description fully informs the agent that the tool will fail and what response to expect. It even includes a future roadmap. This is complete given the tool's current state, though if the tool were implemented, more behavioral details would be needed.

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 input schema covers both parameters completely with descriptive text for each (output_dir and repo_list_path), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema's already clear definitions.

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 function with a specific verb ('Batch-render'), resource ('README diagrams'), and scope ('across a list of fleet repos'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like render_svg, which presumably handles single renders.

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 explicitly warns 'NOT IMPLEMENTED YET,' which is crucial guidance against using the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance beyond this warning.

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