orch_substrate

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing side effects and operational characteristics. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, computationally expensive, requires specific permissions, or how it interacts with ASTRA's channel beyond the output components. The description focuses on content rather than behavior.

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 with no wasted words, listing the key output components in a compact structure. While it is efficient, the sentence is somewhat dense and would benefit from a clearer subject-verb-object structure to improve readability.

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 the complexity of the domain (Orch OR, ASTRA, multiple optional parameters) and the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently call the tool. It does not explain the semantics of the optional parameters, the expected return format, or enough context about the 'verdict' to interpret results. The description is a minimal stub rather than a complete usage guide.

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% description coverage, so the description must explain parameter meaning and usage. It explicitly references only 'substrate' via the phrase 'for one substrate'; the other parameters (neuronCount, channelLatencyMs) are not mentioned. The description does not clarify whether these parameters influence the verdict or how they relate to the listed output components.

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 specifies that the tool provides an 'Orch OR verdict for one substrate' and enumerates the components (tubulin budget, epochs, reasoning), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on different scopes or criteria. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'computes', and the jargon (Orch OR, ASTRA's channel) is not explained, making the purpose somewhat opaque.

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 phrase 'for one substrate' implies that this tool is appropriate when a verdict for a specific substrate is needed, offering a context hint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., orch_report, orch_criterion) or provide any exclusionary guidance.

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