Orchestrate AI agent actions in one shot by combining classification, gated plans, agent routing, policy rules, and search hits to process files and enforce verification.
One-shot orchestration directive combining classification, gates plan, agent route, policy rules, and search hits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| files | No | files to process |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds no behavior beyond that framing — no cost/latency hint for a bundled multi-step operation, no statement of what the combined result contains, no indication of whether sub-steps are executed or merely reported. For an orchestration tool whose main risk is redundant downstream calls, this is thin.
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 sentence with no filler, but it is a dense jargon stack ('classification, gates plan, agent route, policy rules, search hits') that front-loads abstract nouns rather than the operative behavior. Short, yet not efficient at conveying the key fact.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only place the return value could be explained — and it merely lists five categories of information without indicating their shape, nesting, or how an agent should act on them. Given the tool's combinatorial nature, that is a substantial gap.
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?
Only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100% ('files to process'), so the schema carries the load. The description never mentions the files parameter or how file scope affects the orchestration, but with full coverage the baseline applies.
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 identifies this as a combined 'one-shot orchestration directive' aggregating classification, plan, route, policy and search results, which distinguishes it in spirit from the narrower siblings (mind_classify, mind_plan, mind_route, mind_search). But it is a noun phrase with no verb and no statement of what the tool actually does when called — 'combining' is a label, not an action. An agent gets the gist but not a crisp purpose.
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?
Nothing says when to use this one-shot tool versus calling mind_classify, mind_plan, mind_route and mind_search individually, nor any preconditions or exclusions. The sibling list makes the alternative path obvious, yet the description never routes the agent between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.