Kilo-Kit C4 Orchestrate Task

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is already covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior (mode determination, skill selection, brainstorming gating) but never clarifies what the tool returns, that it persists session state (idempotentHint=false with a sessionId param implies this), or what happens when gating blocks execution.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the MANDATORY directive, and the capability list is packed into a single clause with no filler. Slightly dense but nothing is wasted.

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 an 11-parameter orchestrator with a nested context object, optional-but-load-bearing flags, no output schema, and 45% schema coverage, the description leaves too much unexplained. An agent cannot tell from this text how to populate brainstormingApproved/answers or what the orchestration step returns.

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?

Coverage is only 45% across 11 parameters with a nested context object, and the description contributes zero parameter meaning. Key inputs like brainstormingApproved, memoryConfirmations, sessionId and the mode/files/previousErrors context sub-fields get no explanation in either place, so the agent must guess at gating semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('orchestrate task') plus the concrete outputs it produces: determines task mode, selects workflow skills, enforces brainstorming gating. The mandatory-first framing makes it trivially distinguishable from siblings like kilo_route_intent or kilo_think_step, which do narrower routing/thinking work.

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?

Explicit about when to use it: 'Call this tool FIRST before diagnosing, debugging, analyzing, creating, or modifying any code, UI, backend, or project files.' That is a clear gating condition with enumerated trigger situations. It stops short of naming when NOT to call it or which sibling takes over for already-routed follow-up work.

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