list batches

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, yet the description still adds non-obvious traits: strict organization scoping with no cross-org reads, absence of paging/limit parameters, pass-through of the API's list, and single-value status matching. The only gap is that it does not hint at ordering or result-size expectations, which matters given the explicit no-pagination stance.

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?

Purpose and the sibling routing come first, followed by scope and parameter semantics, so the definition is front-loaded and every sentence carries information. It is dense and slightly long for a three-parameter list call, with the second paragraph doing several jobs at once.

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 filtered list tool with an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: org scope and the remedy (organizations_select), no-pagination behavior, status enum grouping, and time-window semantics. Return-field detail is deferred appropriately to the output schema while still summarized in the first line.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that status matches one value per call and that omitting it shows running and finished batches together, and that createdAfter/createdBefore together bound a time window. That is useful operational framing rather than restatement.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("List the batches in this session's organization") and immediately states the returned fields (id, status, metrics, outputUrl). It explicitly separates itself from batches_get (per-item results) and generations_list (single generations), so an agent can choose without opening a schema.

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?

Gives three concrete when-to-use triggers: finding a batch id, verifying existence after an uncertain batches_create response before retrying, and diagnosing concurrency_limit_reached. It also names the alternatives (batches_get, generations_list, organizations_select) with the condition that selects each.

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