Batch Results

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

The description discloses the full sequence of operations (checks status, retrieves JSONL, decodes, saves) and returns errors. This adds context beyond annotations (which only indicate not read-only, not idempotent). No contradictions with annotations.

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 lead sentence and clear sections, but the Args block is redundant with the schema, adding unnecessary length. Could be more concise.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description explains the process and return value (list of paths and errors). It is sufficiently complete, though missing details like file overwrite behavior or error types.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description repeats the schema descriptions verbatim without adding new semantic context (e.g., format, constraints). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents both parameters.

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 uses strong action verbs ('Download and save') and specifies the resource ('images from a completed batch job'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like gemini_batch_status, gemini_batch_submit, and image editing/generation tools.

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 usage after a batch is complete and details the process (check status, retrieve output, decode, save). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternative tools.

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