sassy_batch

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the disclosure burden. It explains concurrency semantics, per-operation timeout, stop_on_error cancellation behavior, and that failed operations never raise but are returned in the `ok` field. It also states that normal validation, audit, and rate-limit paths still apply.

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 information-dense and well-structured: a lead sentence, a parameter block with example, then return and safety notes. Every sentence adds value, and the example is compact and illustrative.

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 tool with no annotations and zero schema-description coverage, this description is complete enough to call correctly. It covers input format, concurrency control, timeout semantics, failure handling, return shape, and audit/rate-limit behavior. The output schema exists, so the extra return description is complementary rather than redundant.

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 description compensates for 0% schema coverage by explaining `operations` with a JSON array example, `max_concurrent` with range and rate-limit advice, `timeout_seconds` as per-operation, and `stop_on_error` semantics. However, it presents `operations` as a JSON array while the schema type is `string`, leaving ambiguity about whether the argument must be a JSON-encoded string.

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 first sentence states the action clearly: 'Run many SassyMCP tools concurrently in one call.' The operations parameter with a concrete example makes the resource and invocation format explicit, and this distinguishes it from every sibling tool, which are individual operations.

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 implies the batching use case ('concurrently in one call') and gives concrete parameter guidance, such as lowering max_concurrent when targets share a rate limit. It also adds a when-not constraint with 'batching is scheduling, not an escape hatch,' but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when to prefer individual tool calls.

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