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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuine behavioral rule about not creating a parallel backlog and tells the agent that docs contain snippet:// refs requiring resolution, but says nothing about return shape or pagination behavior (beyond what the output schema covers).

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?

Front-loads the purpose in two words and is dense with no filler, though the middle sentences pack several cross-tool workflow instructions into telegraphic fragments that take a second read to parse.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description only needs to convey purpose and workflow context, which it does. The one gap is that it never states the precondition for invoking orient in the first place, relying on the agent to infer it.

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 100%, so every parameter (mode, task, depth, limit, cursor, since_checkpoint) is already documented in the schema, including enum meanings and limit clamps. The description restates the mode names but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 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?

States a specific resource and action ('Workspace orientation') and enumerates the four modes, which maps to the mode enum. It doesn't sharply distinguish orient from siblings like atisbo_map or atisbo_analyze, but the mode list and routing hints make the tool's role inferable.

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 says to continue the user's existing workflow and never create a parallel backlog, and routes follow-up work to named alternatives (atisbo_lookup mode=open for snippet refs, atisbo_analyze for aggregates, atisbo_capture mode=patch_artefact for edits). It lacks an explicit statement of when to call orient itself versus those siblings (e.g. session start), so it falls short of a 5.

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