orchestration_memory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe and non-destructive. The description adds that it searches memory from prior runs, but does not disclose any other behavioral nuances.

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?

A single sentence that is concise but lacks structure. It efficiently conveys the purpose without extraneous words, but could benefit from being better organized.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description is brief. It explains what is searched but does not detail the output format or provide examples. Given the complexity of orchestration memory, more context would be helpful.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description does not add any additional information beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score 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?

Description clearly states 'Search orchestration memory' specifying the verb and resource. It mentions what's in memory (feedback rules, negative memory, workflow hints). However, it does not fully distinguish from sibling tools like 'orchestration_feedback' which may also deal with feedback rules.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'agent_memory' or 'orchestration_feedback'. The description only states what it does, not when or when not to use it.

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