batch

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: synchronous execution, deterministic compute, nothing persisted, and no separate rate limit. It also outlines the return structure, including total, succeeded, failed, and per-item details. This aligns with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, adding valuable context without contradiction.

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 compact (two sentences) and well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then usage alternatives, then behavioral specifics and return format. Every sentence contributes essential information 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?

The description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it vs alternatives, execution behavior, and the complete return payload. Given the simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, this is complete and leaves no critical gaps for an agent to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'items', which is described as 'Simulation requests forwarded to POST /v1/batch.' The description adds value by explaining per-item results and the envelope fields, enriching the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 the tool runs multiple simulation requests in one call and returns per-item success/failure details. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming 'simulate' for single requests and 'submit_job' for large async runs, making its scope unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use simulate for a single request and submit_job for very large async runs.' It also adds context that it is synchronous, deterministic, non-persisting, and has no separate rate limit, helping the agent decide when to invoke it.

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