Start OrangePro

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

Annotations declare it not read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds real context beyond that: it writes specific files, reuses prior reports on no-change runs, and explains that AI lanes never affect Proven coverage. It stops short of stating permissions/rate-limit or BYOK failure behavior.

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, purpose front-loaded, no filler. However the first sentence is a dense run-on list of six-plus artifacts and behaviors that is harder to scan than it needs to be for such a complex 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?

For a 13-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does cover the key behavioral contract: what files are written, the no-change short-circuit, and that 'agent next actions' are returned. Return value details (shapes of the next-actions payload) remain unspecified, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so every one of the 13 parameters is already documented in structured fields. The description restates the fresh/unchanged_since behavior and the AI-lane separation but adds little parameter-level meaning the schema doesn't already carry, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('One-command local setup for a repo or PR') and enumerates the concrete artifacts it produces (behavior-coverage.html, tests.csv, rtm.md). It's clear what it does, but it never names which sibling it replaces or how it relates to orangepro_analyze_sources or orangepro_generate_tests, which it appears to subsume.

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?

Useful guidance is given for one path only: unchanged repos short-circuit unless fresh=true forces a full run. There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this umbrella tool versus the granular siblings (analyze_sources, prove, ai_links). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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