orchestrate_start_run

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

The description reveals that the tool auto-executes gather stages, returns next_action, and does not call other servers. However, with no annotations, it omits details on error handling, idempotency, authentication, or the effect of optional parameters.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the main action and adding key behavioral notes. It could benefit from more structured format, but remains efficient.

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 8 parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It fails to explain the return format fully, the meaning of 'local gather stages', or how bindings and other parameters interact.

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 only 25%, yet the description adds no parameter-level details. It does not explain how parameters like model, prompt, or bindings affect the run, nor does it clarify the role of recipe_id beyond being required.

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 starts a supervised run and auto-executes local gather stages. It differentiates by noting it does not call other MCP servers, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like orchestrate_plan_recipe or orchestrate_continue_recipe.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions what the tool does but not the context for its selection, such as prerequisites or conditions for use.

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