orchestrate

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

The description adds minimal behavioral detail beyond annotations: it says it creates a task graph and dispatches tasks, but doesn't disclose side effects, asynchronicity, approval requirements, or how 'bounded' works. Since annotations only offer generic safety flags, the description should carry more. It doesn't contradict annotations.

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 two-sentence description is short and free of fluff, and the second sentence adds useful detail about task graph creation and dispatching. However, the conciseness comes at the cost of missing essential information, though structure itself is effective.

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 complex tool with 9 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description fails to explain mode behavior, monitoring via sibling tools, or what happens after queuing. It is incomplete for an agent to safely invoke it.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the 9 parameters, including the critical 'mode' enum (plan_only, auto_readonly, auto_execute) and budget structure. This is a significant gap for an agent to correctly set parameters.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a planning/orchestration tool that queues a bounded run, creates a task graph, and dispatches child tasks. Specific verbs (Queue, creates, dispatches) and resource (Lead Codex planning run) are present. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like delegate_task or delegate_batch.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use orchestrate versus alternatives. The description implies a high-level planning scenario but never mentions exclusions or alternative tools. The sibling list includes delegate_task and delegate_batch, but the description doesn't position orchestrate against them.

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