orca_worktree_psSummarize orchestration across git worktrees: see which agents are running where, their state, and limit results for a compact status view.
Compact orchestration summary across worktrees: which agents run where and their state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 covered. The description adds that output is aggregated/compact across worktrees, but says nothing about whether inactive worktrees are included, ordering, or how truncation behaves given the limit parameter.
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 key noun (orchestration summary across worktrees) and the payload (agents and state) both appear immediately.
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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the payload ('which agents run where and their state'), which is the most useful single fact. However, for a tool whose entire value is its return shape, a one-line sketch of fields and the undocumented limit parameter leave real gaps.
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 single parameter (limit, 1-200) has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell what the limit counts (worktrees? agents?) or what the default behavior is when it is omitted.
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?
Names a concrete deliverable (a compact orchestration summary across worktrees) and scopes it to agent placement and state, which is meaningfully narrower than a plain worktree listing. It does not explicitly name or contrast with orca_worktree_list or orca_worktree_show, so the reader must infer the distinction.
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 word 'compact' hints at an overview use case, but there is no statement of when to choose this over the 17 listed siblings — notably orca_worktree_list, orca_worktree_show, orca_status. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no follow-up guidance are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.