orchestrator_record_attempt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the trigger condition (gate failure) and that it increments an attempt counter returning should_retry, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about side effects, error behavior, or permissions. It also restates return values already covered by the output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste; the trigger and return contract are front-loaded. Nothing redundant beyond the return-value line that overlaps the output schema.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return values needn't be explained. But for an orchestration state-mutation tool with two fully undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description does not say enough about preconditions (e.g., whether preflight must run first) or the effect on the orchestration 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%, so the description must compensate, but it only obliquely references 'stage' and never explains app_dir or the expected format/nature of either parameter. The two required parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: counting a failed attempt of a stage, with a trigger condition (after a gate failure). This is clear enough to understand the tool's function, though it doesn't distinguish itself from the many sibling orchestrator_* tools (orchestrator_preflight, orchestrator_next_action, orchestrator_needs_human).

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?

Provides one contextual trigger, 'after a gate failure,' which implies when to call it. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance or ordering relative to sibling orchestrator tools, leaving the agent to infer its place in the loop.

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