github_get_orchestration_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is an inspection operation ('Inspect current progress...'), implying read-only behavior. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the session_id is invalid, whether the operation has side effects, or what the response format looks like. The description adds some behavioral context but not rich detail.

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 front-loads the action ('Inspect') and lists the specific aspects covered. It is concise and every word earns its place, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 simple one-parameter inspection tool, the description is mostly complete. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't explain what the response contains or how to interpret the 'worker state machine' and 'compiled categories'. An agent might benefit from knowing the return shape or any prerequisites (e.g., session must exist).

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 already documents the single parameter (session_id as 'Orchestration session identifier'). The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, but with full coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and names the resource ('orchestration session') plus the specific aspects it covers (progress, completed workers, worker state machine, compiled categories). It is clear about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like github_get_worker_chunk or github_force_reduce_session.

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 implies this is for checking the status of an orchestration session, which is a read-only inspection. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like github_get_worker_chunk (which likely gets a specific worker's chunk) or github_force_reduce_session. The context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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