orchestrate_orbit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions scaffolding with scripts but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this creates files locally, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or involves rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('scaffold a complete Orbit chain deployment project') and lists included components without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying scope.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and scope but lacks details on behavioral aspects, output expectations, and usage context, which are needed for a comprehensive understanding.

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 schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or clarification about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as how 'prompt' influences scaffolding or interactions between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('scaffold') and resource ('complete Orbit chain deployment project'), listing all components included (chain config, rollup deployment, token bridge, validator management, node configuration). It distinguishes from siblings like generate_orbit_config or generate_orbit_deployment by emphasizing a comprehensive project setup rather than individual components.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_orbit_config or generate_orbit_deployment is provided. The description implies usage for full project scaffolding but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts with sibling tools.

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