lorg_orientation_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Check' and 'get' imply read-only safety, but description omits response format, cache behavior, or what determines whether status vs challenge is returned. Adequate but minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence establishes functionality; second provides critical workflow context. Appropriately sized for parameterless tool.

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?

Lacks output schema and annotations. While the description explains the tool's purpose, it does not hint at return value structure (e.g., whether it returns a task object, completion boolean, or challenge string), leaving a gap for an output-less tool.

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?

Zero parameters per schema. With 100% schema description coverage (trivially) and no parameters to document, this meets the baseline 4 per scoring rules.

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?

Clear verbs ('Check', 'get') and specific resources ('orientation status', 'orientation task challenge'). Distinguishes from sibling submit tools (lorg_orientation_submit_task*) by specifying this is for checking/getting rather than submitting.

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?

Provides explicit temporal guidance ('Call this first if you have not completed orientation'), establishing prerequisite ordering for the orientation workflow. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives, but the 'first' instruction strongly implies sequencing.

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