cli_batch

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses critical behaviors: the cost of each CLI session (reboot + USB re-enumeration), the session exit semantics (no save for reads, save once for writes), the all-or-nothing policy on FC rejection, and rejection of motor commands. It also mentions the backup and return values, giving the agent a complete mental model of side effects and safety.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line, then uses clear section headers (Args, Behaviour) and bullet lists to organize dense information. Every sentence earns its place, explaining the why (reboot cost), the how (batch behavior), and the safety mechanisms without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (batching, side effects, safety semantics) and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the reboot implications, read vs write behavior, all-or-nothing persistence, motor command restrictions, and explicitly states what the return value contains, so the agent has all necessary context to invoke it correctly.

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 only lists types and defaults, but the description adds meaningful semantics: 'commands' is an 'Ordered list of CLI commands' and 'confirm_for_writes' must be set to run a batch containing writes. It explains why the confirmation is needed (write safety) and that a backup is taken, going far beyond the minimal schema definition.

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 opens with 'Run MANY CLI commands in ONE CLI session — a single reboot for the whole batch,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this tool from the single-command 'cli' sibling. It also contrasts with dedicated write tools by positioning itself as the escape hatch for ad-hoc multi-command work.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Prefer it for any ad-hoc multi-command work' and notes that dedicated write tools already batch internally, so this tool is only for other cases. It also tells users to use cli(..., props_removed=True) for motor tests, offering an alternative. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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