batch_generate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behaviors: upfront validation of the entire PMID list and propagation of language, output size, and output directory into every request. These are meaningful operational details beyond the tool's basic purpose, though it omits potential error behavior or return specifics.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise behavioral qualifier. Every word contributes value; no filler or 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?

For a batch tool with an output schema, the description covers the key contextual aspects: what it does, sequential processing, validation, and parameter propagation. It does not mention scalability limits or failure handling, but the presence of an output schema partially fills the return-value gap, making this adequate though not exhaustive.

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 compensate. It adds context for three parameters (language, output size, output directory) by explaining they are propagated to all generations, which helps clarify their role. However, it says nothing about the remaining parameters (pmids, figure_type), leaving some gaps in semantics.

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's purpose: 'Generate academic figures for multiple PMIDs in sequence.' It uses a specific verb ('Generate'), identifies the resource ('academic figures'), and distinguishes this batch tool from single-generation siblings by emphasizing 'multiple PMIDs' and 'batch mode.'

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 the primary use case: when multiple PMIDs need figure generation. It says 'Batch mode validates the full PMID list up front...' which signals this is the batch counterpart to a single-PMID tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, so it stops short of full guidelines.

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