batch

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two useful behaviors: execution is concurrent and results are returned per device. However, it doesn't cover failure handling, partial success, ordering, or whether side effects depend on the selected tool, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 concise sentences convey the core operation and return behavior with no filler. The action is front-loaded and every word adds meaning.

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 generic dispatcher without output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers concurrency and per-device results, but doesn't specify valid values for 'tool', how 'arguments' map to the selected tool, or behavior on partial failures, so an agent is left to infer important invocation details.

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?

The input schema describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only context about multiple devices and per-device results, not new parameter-level semantics, which aligns with the baseline of 3.

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 states a clear action ('Run an operation') and resource ('against multiple devices concurrently'), and mentions per-device results. This distinguishes it from single-device siblings like call or get_device, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 establishes a clear selection context: use this tool when an operation must be applied to multiple devices concurrently. It doesn't state exclusions or name alternative tools, but the multi-device framing is an explicit usage signal, so it's more than implied.

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