orchestrate

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds context: it runs a deterministic tool chain and returns a context pack, tool trace, and verification hints. No contradictions with 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 sentence that is mostly front-loaded with the core purpose. It is reasonably concise with no filler, 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?

No output schema exists, but the description mentions return values (context pack, tool trace, verification hints). However, it does not fully explain these terms or detail the workflow. More context would improve usability.

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?

All four parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 it runs a guided local investigation workflow, classifies tasks, executes a tool chain, and returns specific outputs. It mentions 'requires orchestration enabled', which hints at differentiation from siblings like 'investigate' or 'orchestration', though not explicit.

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 local investigation tasks but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are named despite many sibling tools like 'investigate' and 'orchestration'.

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