orch_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists the report's contents, which helps set expectations for the output, but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, triggers any computation, or has side effects. For a status report, this is a moderate gap in transparency.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the key concept 'Consolidated Orch OR status' and then efficiently lists four specific report components in a structured, comma-separated manner. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it is slightly dense with jargon.

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 report tool with no output schema, the description provides a fairly complete indication of what the report contains: epistemic standing, Penrose criterion, decoherence budget, and verdicts for three substrates. It is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect, though terms like 'theory epistemic standing' could be clearer to a new agent.

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, as shown by the empty properties in the input schema, so the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related information, which is acceptable.

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 clearly indicates this is a consolidated status report for Orch OR, enumerating specific contents: theory epistemic standing, Penrose criterion, decoherence budget, and ASTRA substrate verdicts. It distinguishes from sibling tools like orch_criterion or orch_decoherence by covering multiple aspects in one report, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieves' or 'generates'.

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?

The word 'Consolidated' implies this is the summary/overview tool, suggesting use when a high-level status is needed rather than detailed per-substrate data. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings or any exclusions, so usage context is implied but not clearly defined.

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