orchestration_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses data sources (memory, timeline, rotated files), that live timeline.jsonl is always included, and that include_archives delivers compact aggregates, making the read-only scope and behavior clear.

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?

Starts with a one-sentence summary, then uses compact bullets for output fields and explicit optional-parameter explanations. It is detailed but every sentence earns its place.

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 annotations and a schema with no descriptions, the tool description covers all major output sections, the nuanced optional parameters, archive behavior, and default contexts. An output schema exists, so return-value details don't need to be repeated here.

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 schema has 0% parameter descriptions, so the description compensates well: it explains workspace filtering, window_minutes semantics and the all-time default, and include_archives behavior. It only implies rather than explicitly defines n as the milestone count, which is a small gap.

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 it is a portfolio-wide snapshot containing in-flight dispatches, recent milestones, and per-project stats, and explicitly frames it as answering 'how is everything going?' without per-project polling. This is clear, but it doesn't distinguish itself from similarly named siblings like portfolio_digest.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use signal: the tool answers broad status questions without per-project polling. It doesn't name alternatives or say when not to use it, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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