Orchestration MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Start a new external coding-agent run' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose permission requirements, rate limits, whether this consumes resources, what happens to previous runs, or how to monitor the started run. 'Return immediately' suggests asynchronous execution but lacks details about how to track completion or retrieve results.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the core action and key behavioral trait ('return immediately'). There's zero wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the essential information. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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 complex tool with 11 parameters, nested objects, and no annotations, the description is minimal. While an output schema exists (reducing need to describe return values), the description doesn't address the tool's role in the broader workflow with sibling tools, doesn't explain the asynchronous nature hinted by 'return immediately', and provides no context about error conditions or typical usage patterns. It's adequate but leaves significant gaps.

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?

With 91% schema description coverage, the schema does most of the parameter documentation work. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (like how 'session_mode' interacts with 'session_id'), typical values, or usage patterns. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 states the action ('Start a new external coding-agent run') and resource ('coding-agent run'), with the specific behavioral detail 'and return immediately' distinguishing it from potentially blocking operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'continue_run' or 'get_run' beyond the 'start new' aspect.

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 description provides minimal guidance - only that it starts a new run and returns immediately. There's no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'continue_run' for resuming sessions, 'cancel_run' for stopping runs, or 'poll_events' for monitoring. No prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases are mentioned.

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