run_show_command_batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses concurrency via ThreadPoolExecutor, tag filtering details, grep behavior (headers preserved, output for no match), and defaults for max_workers and config_path. Missing details on error handling or output format, but overall transparent for a read-only command.

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 well-structured with a brief headline and bullet-like parameter explanations. It is fairly concise given the complexity, but could be slightly tighter (e.g., combining some sentences). Every sentence adds value.

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 6 parameters (1 required) and an output schema presumably covering return values, the description covers selection, filtering, parallelism, and defaults. It lacks explicit error handling or mention of output structure, but the presence of output schema may compensate. Overall complete for the intended use.

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 all 6 parameters. It does so thoroughly: command (CLI command), hostnames (must exist in config.ini), tags (detailed AND/OR logic), grep_pattern (re.search, header preservation), max_workers (default 5), config_path (default search). This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 clearly states 'Run a CLI show command on multiple devices in parallel,' specifying the action (run) and resource (CLI show command on multiple devices). This distinguishes it from siblings like run_show_command (single device) and run_show_commands (multiple commands on single device).

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 explains target selection via hostnames, tags, or both, with clear logic (intersection, default all). It also covers grep_pattern filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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