ksp_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the batching intent (one round trip) and the safety boundary around irreversible commands, but says nothing about ordering, partial-failure behavior, atomicity, or whether results come back per command.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the batch rationale front-loaded and the safety constraint second. Nothing to trim.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, no parameter documentation, and no enumeration of the safe commands that may be batched. For a tool whose entire surface is a free-form command list, the description leaves the core question an agent must answer before calling it unanswered.

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% and the single parameter is an opaque array of objects with free-form 'command' and 'args' fields (additionalProperties: true). The description gives no indication of valid command identifiers or args shape, so the schema is essentially undiscoverable from the definition.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (batch-send KSP commands over one bridge round trip) and the motivation (reduce latency), so it is distinguishable from the single-purpose siblings. It does not explain what a 'command' string actually is, but the overall purpose is 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?

Explicitly states the exclusion: irreversible launch/abort/recovery commands must use dedicated tools, which routes the agent to ksp_editor_launch, ksp_flight_abort, and ksp_flight_recover. It does not state the positive trigger (e.g. 'use when issuing 2+ independent safe commands') as concretely, so it falls just short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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