github_orchestrate_workers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior: taking an immutable frozen snapshot to prevent mid-run mutation drift, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose whether the tool has side effects like persisting session state or creating resources, which is important for an orchestration tool with no annotations.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the 'Map-Reduce Step 1' context. Every clause contributes meaning: the immutable snapshot, taxonomy extraction, and chunk plan generation. No filler or redundancy.

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?

While the description covers the core behavior, it lacks details on what the tool returns (since no output schema exists) and how the generated 'worker chunk plans' are used in subsequent steps. It also doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication or session handling, which are critical for an orchestration tool. It is adequate for basic invocation but incomplete for a complex multi-step workflow.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage of all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by mentioning 'balanced worker chunk plans' which relates to num_workers, but does not explicitly explain any parameter. It does not go beyond the schema to clarify usage nuances.

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's role as 'Map-Reduce Step 1' with specific actions: takes a frozen snapshot, extracts taxonomy, and generates worker chunk plans. It names the resource (starred repos) and distinguishes itself from siblings like github_get_worker_chunk and github_force_reduce_session by being the initialization step.

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?

It explicitly labels itself as Step 1 of a map-reduce workflow, indicating it should be called before other steps like github_submit_worker_digest or github_force_reduce_session. It does not mention alternatives explicitly, but the context of sibling tools and the 'Step 1' label give clear usage context.

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