gc_orchestration

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. It names six actions but provides zero detail on side effects, whether operations are destructive, what 'seat-switch' mutates, whether launching creates persistent side effects, or what responses look like. Story/FR references are unhelpful without external context. For a multi-action orchestrator with no annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 brief (one sentence plus action list) which is efficient, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity. Referencing 'Story 2.11, FR-21' and internal action vocabulary (plant, seat, tree) without definitions makes it cryptic. It is short but not well-structured for an external agent, trading usefulness for brevity.

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 tool with 9 parameters, 6 actions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain the return format, the relationships between actions (plant→tree→node→launch sequencing), or required parameter combinations per action. An agent invoking this tool would need substantial external knowledge to use it correctly.

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 100%, but the per-parameter descriptions are thin, mostly restating 'for plant'/'for launch' without clarifying semantics. The description's action list maps roughly to parameter groups, adding modest value by hinting which params apply to which action. However, with 9 parameters and ambiguous action behaviors, the description does not meaningfully compensate beyond the schema's minimal per-parameter notes.

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 it handles 'Orchestration trees: create + seat-switch for agent hierarchies' with a list of six actions (plant, launch, seat, tree, node, list). This identifies a general purpose but is terse and does not differentiate from siblings beyond broad naming. The verb+resource is present but the action semantics are opaque (e.g., what 'plant', 'launch', 'seat' mean operationally) without further context, so it falls short of a clear, self-contained purpose statement.

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 references Story 2.11, FR-21 and lists actions, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gc_workflow or gc_run. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-naming. The action enum in the schema implies some dispatch logic but the description offers no decision guidance for an agent selecting among the many gc_* siblings.

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