Generates a YAML orchestration plan for sub-agents from a task description. Supports dry-run by default, with an optional run flag to execute.
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.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (returns a YAML plan) and the dry-run default is mentioned in the schema, not the description. It doesn't disclose whether the tool executes anything by default, side effects, or what happens when run=true. The description adds some value but leaves execution semantics implicit.
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?
One concise sentence that front-loads the module name and core function. It's efficient and readable, though it could benefit from a brief note on the run parameter's effect.
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 tool with 3 params, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't explain the YAML structure, whether the plan is returned or saved, or the difference between dry-run and execution. An agent could call it correctly but might not understand the full workflow.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the overall context (task → YAML plan) but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb ('编排' = orchestrate/compose) and resource ('Sub Agent 编排方案 YAML'), clearly distinguishing it as a planning/orchestration tool. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the verb+resource combination is specific enough to separate it from the many sibling 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?
The description implies usage: pass a task description and get a YAML orchestration plan. It mentions the dry-run default via the 'run' parameter description, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like fde_compose or route_workflow. The context is clear but exclusions/alternatives are not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.