orchestrate_project

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

No annotations are provided, but the description states 'Side effects: Read-only operation; uses snapshot resume for efficiency.' This clearly discloses the read-only nature and a performance optimization, adding value beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise: three sentences that clearly state purpose, usage context, and side effects. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 simplicity (3 optional parameters, existing output schema) and sibling context, the description covers purpose, comprehensive comparison, and side effects. It lacks details on potential errors or default behaviors but is adequate for the complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning or context for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline without enhancement.

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 builds a complete orchestration view with tasks, agents, and state. It is more comprehensive than the sibling 'get_task_graph', which focuses on dependencies. The verb 'build' is slightly abstract but the overall purpose is clear.

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 explicitly says to use this for a holistic view and contrasts it with 'get_task_graph', providing an alternative. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but gives sufficient context for decision-making.

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