orchestrate_get_dag_batches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Compute' suggests a read-only calculation, but the description does not explicitly state that it mutates nothing, does not execute tasks, or what happens when plan.md is missing or malformed.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and resource, with no filler or redundant detail. Every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the parameter count is low, the description still lacks important context: when to call the tool, how to supply the workspace root, and whether any state changes occur. It provides only the barest outline in what is otherwise a structured orchestration workflow.

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?

There is zero parameter coverage in the schema, and the description does not explain the workspace_root parameter or what a null value means. The phrase 'from plan.md tasks' loosely connects to a workspace but does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 states a specific action ('compute topological execution batches') and identifies the source data ('plan.md tasks'). It is clearly a batch-planning/read-only computation tool, distinct from siblings like orchestrate_get_agents, though it doesn't explicitly name or differentiate sibling tools.

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?

It implies that a plan.md file must already exist and that the result is intended for execution sequencing, but it does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it fits relative to approve/verify/status. The usage context is only implicit.

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