fugu_orchestrate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects and runtime behavior. It mentions local execution and shared memory, but omits details about disk writes, network calls, rate limits, or the final synthesis result. The description gives a high-level overview but lacks depth for a tool that likely manages multiple workers and shared state.

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 sentence that packs the key mode distinction. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it concise and easy to read.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (9 parameters, two enums, no output schema), the description gives only a brief overview. It does not explain return value shape, error scenarios, or how the workflow synthesis is structured. The description leaves many operational details unaddressed, making it incomplete for such a feature-rich 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?

The input schema has 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little extra meaning by linking 'memoria compartilhada' to shared memory and 'sintese' to synthesis, but it also introduces terms like 'model_id', 'subtasks', and 'access_list' that are not present in the schema, which could confuse. Overall, the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 executes a Fugu-style local orchestration with two modes (fast and ultra). It differentiates the modes, and the verb 'Executa' plus the resource 'orquestracao local estilo Fugu' identifies the purpose. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the orchestration role is distinct enough.

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 conveys that fast mode selects a worker and ultra mode creates a multi-agent workflow, giving some guidance on when to use each mode. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives, and does not discuss prerequisites or integration context relative to sibling tools like run_antigravity or compare_models.

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