Orca orchestration inbox

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely valuable behavior beyond that: the returned text is untrusted cross-session data that must not be followed as instructions, a prompt-injection guardrail an agent cannot get from structured fields. It still says nothing about ordering, freshness, or whether the call blocks.

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 waste, with the operation front-loaded and the safety warning immediately after. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 single-optional-param read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the definition is close to sufficient, and the untrusted-data warning is the highest-value piece of context. Gaps remain around result shape (what a 'message' contains), ordering, and how the limit behaves, which an agent needs to interpret the output.

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 sole 'limit' parameter is never mentioned in the description, so its meaning (cap on messages returned), default value, and interaction with the 1-200 bounds are left entirely to the raw JSON schema. A one-line note on the limit would have made this adequate.

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 ('Show') and a specific resource ('orchestration messages across agents'), which is clearly distinct from the file/terminal/task resources in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with near-neighbors like orca_search or orca_terminal_read, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The phrase 'across agents' hints at breadth but never tells the agent whether to prefer this over orca_search or orca_terminal_read, nor whether it is a poll/snapshot operation.

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