order

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

Despite openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false in annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it is read-only by default, requires allow_state_change=true for state-changing actions, and refuses execution/file-write verbs. This goes beyond the annotation flags and helps an agent predict side effects.

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 dense but efficient. Each sentence adds functional value: the call pattern, read-only default, state-change opt-in, exploration recommendation, and menu/route routing. It could be slightly trimmed, but the structure is logical and front-loaded with the primary usage pattern.

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 generic dispatcher with no output schema and dynamic behavior, the description is impressively complete. It covers invocation, safety constraints, suggested use cases, and fallback tools for discovery. It does not describe return values, but given the open-world nature of dispatched actions, that is an acceptable omission.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by showing the call pattern order(action, args), explaining that args are passed 'exactly as you'd pass them directly,' and clarifying allow_state_change with a concrete example (index_repo). The compress=true hint further enriches parameter understanding.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair ('dispatch any jcodemunch action by name') and positions itself as 'the single-verb front door to the full tool catalog.' It distinguishes itself somewhat from siblings by noting that 'menu' discovers actions and 'route' picks one, though it could more sharply contrast with 'route' as a dispatcher vs. a router.

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?

Excellent guidance: it explicitly recommends order('get_ranked_context', ...) for exploration questions over chained search/outline/source hops, suggests adding compress=true, and directs users to 'menu' for discovery or 'route' for task-based selection. It also states that execution/file-write verbs are refused, giving a clear boundary.

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