orch_cycle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety/mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds the useful detail that it reports integrated epoch counts, but it does not disclose what state the TCAI cycle or surrogate gate mutates, nor any rate or consumption constraints. Some added value, but thin for a stateful composite.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action pipeline comes first and the reported result last. Jargon-heavy but structurally efficient.

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 multi-stage stateful operation with no output schema and one undocumented parameter, the description leaves key gaps: what the cycle does to state, what a returned epoch count implies, and any preconditions. Annotations cover only the safety profile.

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 0% for the single 'controllability' parameter (0-1), and the description never mentions it or its effect on the gate/cycle. With the schema silent and the description silent, the caller has no basis for setting this value.

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 names a concrete three-step operation (read OVOMIND affect frame, run TCAI cycle, pass workspace competition through the surrogate gate) and states the reported output (epoch count). It is specific but does not distinguish itself from closely named siblings such as tcai_cycle, ovo_cycle, or orch_substrate, so an agent cannot tell why it should pick this composite over those.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when *not* to call it versus tcai_cycle or ovo_read, which appear to overlap. The agent is left to infer the orchestration role from the name alone.

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