run_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'bounded concurrency' alludes to the concurrency limit, but nothing is said about error/partial-failure behavior, timeouts (timeout_sec defaults to 3600), isolation, or side effects of actually executing tasks.

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?

A single tight sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a tool that accepts a nested array of job specs and spawns execution, the description omits concurrency defaults, per-job timeout behavior, failure semantics, and permissions, which is inadequate given zero annotations.

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% across both top-level params and the nested JobSpec fields. The description only obliquely maps to max_concurrency ('bounded concurrency') and job independence, leaving task, cwd, model, effort, review, acceptance, timeout_sec, and project_root undocumented.

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 ('Run') and resource ('job batch'), and 'batch' implicitly contrasts with the singular sibling run_job. However, it never names the alternative tool, so differentiation requires inference from the term 'batch'.

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?

'already-independent' hints at a constraint (do not batch dependent jobs) but never states when to use run_jobs versus run_job, execute_task, or continue_task. No explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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