alethia_tell_parallel

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds concrete behavioral details: it spawns a browser instance per spec, runs them in parallel, and returns all results together. It also hints at resource usage by mentioning spawning per spec. No contradiction 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by execution details and a use case. Every sentence adds 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 tool with one well-documented parameter and a clear execution model, the description provides a complete mental model: parallel browser instances, input specs, and aggregated results. It doesn't detail the return format, but no output schema exists and the description gives a reasonable expectation. Given the simplicity, this is nearly complete.

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 schema already defines the specs array with url, instructions, and optional name. The description repeats 'Takes an array of test specs' without adding semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the param 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Run multiple test flows concurrently — each against a different URL.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like alethia_tell by emphasizing parallelism and multiple URLs. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to verify multiple pages simultaneously.' It implies this is for parallel verification across different URLs, which differentiates it from single-flow tools. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear.

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