orchestrate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the HEAD/SUB pattern and task handling, it does not explain important aspects such as error handling, recovery strategies, authentication requirements, resource cleanup, or side effects. The description provides a high-level overview without sufficient depth for an agent to anticipate behavior beyond the basic workflow.

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 concise with two well-structured sentences. The first sentence introduces the core functionality and the HEAD/SUB concept, while the second elaborates on the workflow. Every sentence contributes meaningfully, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 the complexity of the tool (nested parameters, coordination strategies, resource limits) and the absence of an output schema, the description is too high-level. It does not cover return value structure, failure modes, aggregation details, or how task dependencies are handled. The agent lacks sufficient context to understand the full orchestration lifecycle, which is a significant gap for such a nuanced tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context beyond the schema; it does not explain how the parameters (e.g., tasks, coordination strategy) affect the HEAD/SUB orchestration or the execution plan. The description's value beyond the schema is limited, but the schema itself is thorough.

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 the tool orchestrates Claude Code sessions with HEAD/SUB coordination, explaining the high-level workflow of analyzing objectives, creating execution plans, spawning SUB processes, and aggregating results. The verb 'orchestrate' and resource 'multiple Claude Code sessions' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage for tasks requiring multi-session coordination but does not specify prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions for deferring. Since there are no sibling tools, the lack of explicit guidelines is less critical but still a missed opportunity.

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