Turn a task description into a YAML orchestration plan for sub-agents. Use dry-run mode to preview before executing, or specify a sub-agent to target.
编排模块——传入任务描述，返回 Sub Agent 编排方案（YAML）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run | No | 是否执行（默认 false = dry-run） | |
| task | Yes | 任务描述 | |
| agent | No | 指定 Sub Agent（可选） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning a YAML plan, which implies a dry-run-ish behavior, but it does not explain the effect of the run parameter (which, per schema, defaults to false and can execute), whether the tool mutates state, or what happens when run is true. This ambiguity is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and output format. No words are wasted, and the YAML output detail is placed prominently. It is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.
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?
Although the schema fills in parameter details, the overall context is incomplete for reliable invocation. The description lacks guidance on when to use the tool, what the run flag actually does in execution, and how the output plan feeds into downstream steps. With no output schema and no annotations, this one-liner leaves nontrivial gaps for an agent.
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 input schema already has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters (run, task, and agent). The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's function: take a task description and return a Sub Agent orchestration plan in YAML. It is specific about the resource and expected output. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from or mention any sibling tools like fde_compose or route_workflow, so it stops short of a 5.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states the input/output pattern but does not explain under what conditions an agent should choose compose over other orchestration-related sibling tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.