get_orchestrator_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: excludes personal workspace folders automatically, returns a list of objects with a defined structure, and implies a read-only operation through 'Return.' While it doesn't explicitly state 'no side effects' or mention pagination/errors, it is sufficiently transparent for a zero-parameter discovery tool.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage guidance, return format, and an important exclusion. Front-loaded with the core function, no redundant or vague wording.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains what is returned, when to call it, how the returned names relate to other tools, and that personal workspace folders are excluded. This covers all essential context an agent needs to use 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics, and the schema trivially covers all (non-existent) parameters. No additional information is required.

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 explicitly states it 'Return all non-workspace folders with their deployed processes and queue names,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It also self-identifies as 'the primary discovery tool,' distinguishing it from siblings like list_folders and list_queue_definitions that likely return narrower datasets.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call it once at the start of any session or whenever the folder name, process name, or queue name is unknown.' It also explains that the names returned are the exact values expected by parameters in all other tools, clarifying its role relative to alternatives.

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