orchestrate_status

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

The word 'Query' implies a read-only operation, which is helpful in a tool with no annotations. However, it does not explain what happens when there is no active session, whether the status is live or cached, or whether calling it has side effects. The description gives the basic safety signal but leaves important behavioral context uncovered.

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 and waste-free; it states the action and the object immediately. For a simple status-query tool with a single optional parameter, this level of conciseness is appropriate.

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?

An output schema exists so the return format is at least partially covered elsewhere, and the tool itself is simple. What is missing is the workflow context: when to call it relative to orchestrate_init or orchestrate_approve, and whether the workspace_root parameter is needed to distinguish statuses. The description is minimally adequate but not fully complete for the 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the parameter, but it never mentions workspace_root or how it affects the query. The schema supplies only the name, type, default, and a title, leaving the agent uncertain what a null value means and whether the parameter is needed for the current session.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and names the resource ('current session status' and 'active phase'), which makes the tool's core purpose clear and separates it from the action-oriented sibling tools like init, approve, and verify. It is not a 5 because 'active phase' is slightly ambiguous and there is no explicit statement distinguishing it from other status-like queries.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, no mention of prerequisites like orchestrate_init, and no indication of what conditions call for status checking. An agent must infer usage from the verb and name alone.

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