test_orchestration

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it starts a run, polls every 2 seconds, has a 90-second timeout, reports progress via notifications, and returns status and execution_id. It lacks explicit safety or side-effect details (e.g., whether it modifies state), but the core behavior is well-covered.

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 with no unnecessary words. It uses a clear structure: one-line summary, behavior paragraph, then arg list. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 no output schema, the description covers return value (final status and execution_id). It also explains polling, timeout, and notifications. It does not address error scenarios or preconditions, but for a test tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains orchestration_id as a UUID and input_data as optional, but omits any explanation for ctx, leaving one of three parameters undocumented. This incomplete compensation lowers the score.

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 explicitly states 'Quick synchronous test of an orchestration', using a specific verb (test) and resource (orchestration). It further details behavior (polling, timeout, notifications) that distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_orchestration, which likely lacks such synchronous testing features.

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 usage for quick synchronous tests with a 90-second timeout, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_orchestration, nor does it provide clear when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites.

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