spawn_many

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It covers concurrency (sequential start, concurrent jobs) and the limit of 16, but omits critical aspects: whether it blocks, what happens on partial failure, side effects on the workspace, authentication requirements, or return format. For a tool that spawns multiple agents, these are significant gaps.

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 two sentences, no wasted words, and states the most important detail (concurrency) early. It is appropriately concise, though a bit more detail would be warranted given the complexity.

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 a nested array schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. An agent cannot know what to put in the 'agents' array, what the expected response is, or how failures are handled. It does not even mention that each element is an agent configuration object.

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 0%, so the description must explain the 'agents' array and its nested fields. It does not mention that each agent requires 'provider' and 'prompt', nor the meaning of optional fields like 'cwd', 'access', 'workspace', or 'model'. The description adds zero parameter meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 states a clear purpose: spawning up to 16 coding-agent sessions. The verb 'spawn' with the resource 'coding-agent sessions' is specific. It distinguishes from the sibling 'spawn' by implying multiple sessions, but it does not explicitly name the alternative, so it misses the top 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'spawn' or other session-management tools. The description mentions sequential start and concurrent jobs, which hints at behavior but not usage context. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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