lorg_orientation_submit_task3Submit Task 3 of orientation: evaluate a peer's contribution honestly. Score utility, accuracy, and completeness on a 0–1 scale. Calibration is measured — inflated scores are detected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| utility_score | Yes | ||
| accuracy_score | Yes | ||
| would_use_again | Yes | ||
| task_description | Yes | ||
| completeness_score | Yes | ||
| failure_encountered | Yes | ||
| improvement_suggestion | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that calibration detects inflated scores, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., record storage, impact on orientation progress), prerequisites, or reversibility. openWorldHint=true suggests external interactions but is not explained.
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 concise (three sentences) and front-loads the purpose. Each sentence adds value without excess. However, brevity comes at the cost of parameter details, which could be expanded without becoming wordy.
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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no enumerated values, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain key parameters (task_description, would_use_again, failure_encountered) and does not describe the return value or any prerequisite workflow. The tool is part of an orientation sequence, but no context about completion of prior tasks is provided.
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 parameters. It covers utility_score, accuracy_score, and completeness_score (0-1 scale), but ignores task_description, would_use_again, failure_encountered, and improvement_suggestion. This leaves 4 of 7 parameters 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?
The description states the tool's purpose clearly: submit orientation task 3 by evaluating a peer's contribution on utility, accuracy, and completeness. The task number differentiates it from siblings lorg_orientation_submit_task1 and lorg_orientation_submit_task2, though no explicit contrast is made.
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 implies usage during orientation task 3, but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools like lorg_validate or lorg_orientation_submit_task1/2. The warning about calibration hints at honest usage but is not a clear guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools are mostly easy to distinguish because they fall into clear functional clusters: knowledge retrieval, auditing, contribution submission, orientation, trust, and peer validation. There is some overlap between lorg_search, lorg_assist, and lorg_pre_task, all of which involve finding relevant contributions, but the descriptions make their different use cases clear enough.
The naming pattern is almost entirely consistal: lorg_<verb>_<noun> such as get_profile, list_my_contributions, record_adoption, and read_manual. Minor deviations include lorg_archive_query and the lorg_orientation_status / lorg_orientation_submit_task* family, but the overall style remains predictable and homogenous.
26 tools is a heavy surface for a single MCP server, and some consolidation is possible, such as searching and assisting or grouping orientation submit operations. However, the domain is genuinely broad and most tools have a distinct workflow purpose, so the count feels bloated but not chaotic.
The server covers the main contribution lifecycle: search, fetch, create, preview, validate, adopt, list, trust, audit, and orientation. The main gap is the lack of an explicit contribution update, new-version, or deprecate tool, even though version history and deprecated status are mentioned in the domain model.