Orca status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that two things are probed (app and runtime) plus reachability, but does not say whether the call blocks, how long it takes, or what a failure looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose is delivered in the first few words.

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 trivial zero-parameter probe with no output schema, the description covers what is being checked. It could go slightly further by hinting at the shape of the result (e.g. running/not running, reachable/unreachable) or what to do on failure, but nothing critical is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies no input is needed to perform the check.

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 ("Check") and a specific resource (Orca app and runtime liveness/reachability), which no sibling covers — siblings enumerate worktrees, terminals, tasks, etc. It is not explicitly contrasted with any sibling, but the health-check framing is distinct enough that an agent won't confuse it with the list/show tools.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the connectivity/health probe to call before or when other Orca tools fail. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it, whether to call it first, or what to do when it reports unreachable.

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