orchestrate_verify

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

The description discloses the key side effect: it advances the phase on success. With no annotations provided, this is important and helpful. However, it does not clarify behavior on failure, whether verification is read-only, whether changes are reversible, or what 'deliverables' includes. It covers the most critical mutation but leaves behavioral details incomplete.

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, front-loaded sentence. Every word earns its place, and the core action and conditional outcome are immediately clear. There is no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 output schema exists and only one optional parameter is present, the description covers the basic workflow and final state change. But with no annotations and no parameter guidance, the agent is left guessing about the meaning of workspace_root, failure behavior, and boundaries of 'current phase deliverables.' It is adequate but not complete for a tool that mutates phase state.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the sole parameter workspace_root is not mentioned in the description at all. The schema only provides the name, null option, and default, which does not explain its role or whether/how it affects verification. The description fails to compensate for the total lack of parameter documentation.

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 names a specific action ('Run machine verification') on a specific target ('current phase deliverables') and the conditional outcome ('advance phase on success'). This clearly distinguishes orchestrate_verify from siblings like orchestrate_approve, orchestrate_status, and orchestrate_init without needing to inspect schemas.

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 implies when to use the tool — when current phase deliverables need machine verification before advancing — but does not explicitly state when not to use it or call out alternative tools. Sibling tools exist for different purposes, but no direct comparison or exclusion is provided.

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