faf_orchestrate_recommendation

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it is read-only with respect to substrate state, never auto-fires, writes a recommendation receipt for audit, and composes multiple internal checks. This provides clear expectations for the agent.

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 well-structured, starting with the main purpose, then listing components, usage caveat, audit behavior, and read-only nature. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by removing the list of components which may be unnecessary for the agent.

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 and no annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, behavior (advisory, read-only), side effects (writes receipt), and internal logic (composes multiple checks). No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters. It adds context by noting that the tool operates on 'current substrate state,' which is implicit rather than parameter-driven. Baseline score for 0 parameters is 4.

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 returns a structured recommendation about drift, specifying the output includes which refresh to call or no_action, severity, and underlying signals. It differentiates itself from siblings by being a 'heavy orchestrator' that composes multiple checks, distinguishing it from lighter tools like faf_guide or faf_status.

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 explicitly says 'ADVISORY ONLY — never auto-fires,' telling the agent not to automatically execute actions based on the recommendation. It also mentions it writes an auditable receipt, implying it's for logging. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool versus alternatives like faf_get_orchestration_policy or refresh_faf.

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