portfolio-workflow

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

Annotations already declare destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds behavioral context on statefulness ('stateful workflow sessions', 'execute-next progression') and notes that workflows are implemented, giving the agent a clearer picture of what to expect beyond the annotation flags.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the core purpose and follow with specific capabilities and examples. No wasted words; every sentence adds information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, multiple intents, workflows), the description provides a solid high-level overview. It names the workflows and core functions, and while it doesn't explain every step or session detail, the schema compensates. The absence of an output schema is noted, but the description offers enough context for initial use.

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?

All parameters have descriptive schema entries, so coverage is 100%. The description's mention of capabilities like 'readiness planning' and 'execute-next' maps to the intent enum, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, which is already detailed.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('orchestrating') and resource ('cross-product workflows across Lerian products'). It enumerates specific capabilities (discovery, planning, sessions, execution) and lists concrete workflows, effectively distinguishing it from the single-product discover/execute 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 for cross-product orchestration, setting it apart from siblings that focus on individual products. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this instead of X' or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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