omni_auto_orchestrate

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the dispatch behavior (classify, then chain engines) but says nothing about cost, runtime, whether the target is executed, what is written to disk, or what permissions are required — critical omissions for an 'autonomous' multi-engine orchestrator run against untrusted binaries.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a verb, capability list, and format enumeration — no repetition or filler. Minor inflation from marketing adjectives ('Autonomous', 'optimal') that add tone rather than information.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description never says what an 'audit chain' returns — engine list, findings structure, aggregation format, or failure modes when classification is ambiguous. For an orchestrator that fans out to many sibling engines, the agent is left guessing at the response shape and result volume.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines target_path fully. The description adds the useful nuance that format detection is magic-byte based and that directories are accepted, giving a baseline-plus score of 4.

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 verb chain (classifies by magic bytes, runs an audit chain) and a resource scope (file or directory), and enumerates supported formats (.exe, .apk, .pyc, .wasm, source dir). It does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as omni_triage_target or omni_deep_reverse, so an agent still cannot tell from the text alone why this entry point beats those.

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?

'in one call' and 'classifies any file or directory' imply this is the automatic entry point when the target type is unknown, which is implicit routing guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative despite 16 siblings with heavily overlapping audit/RE capability.

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