batch

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

The description is extremely transparent, detailing critical behaviors like the multiple syntax options for a single call object ({func, args} or {func, code}), the non-abortive error handling ('One failure does not abort the rest'), and its asynchronous nature ('Handles from earlier calls work later'). This is vital since annotations are absent.

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 packs a significant amount of technical detail into a compact paragraph. While slightly dense, every sentence adds value by defining the tool's core functionality and limitations.

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 that there are no annotations or output schemas, this definition is highly complete. It addresses the 'how' (IPC hop), the 'what' (nested structure), and the 'under what conditions' (non-abortive failures), leaving no major gaps for the agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the complex payload structure. It successfully details the available structures within the `calls` array items (e.g., 'Each call is {func, args} or {func, code} or {func, arguments}'), providing necessary meaning to the schema fields.

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?

Clearly defines the tool's function as grouping 'Many operations in one IPC hop.' While clear, it doesn't explicitly name the category of operations (e.g., 'macro-execution' or 'bulk command execution') compared to its siblings.

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 usage is implied—use it when you need to run multiple related operations together for efficiency. However, it doesn't explicitly state *when* to choose this over a sequential series of calls to the listed sibling tools.

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