orchestrate_kotlin_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal that this is a multi-agent orchestration that executes a multi-stage pipeline, but it does not disclose side effects, filesystem changes, long-running behavior, or prerequisites such as credentials or external services.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the tool's purpose, the second concretely lists the pipeline stages. The colon-delmited list is compact and informative.

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 orchestration tool with six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many siblings, the description covers the high-level scope but omits expected return value, typical runtime, side effects, and when to prefer it over individual tools. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema already documents all six parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. The pipeline list loosely maps to the boolean toggles and target platform, but adds no new parameter-level detail.

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 (end-to-end multi-agent orchestration) and a clear resource (Kotlin applications), then enumerates the pipeline stages it executes. This positions it as the full-project coordinator and distinguishes it from the individual sibling tools like design_kotlin_ui or scaffold_kotlin_backend.

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 phrase 'End-to-end' and 'full pipeline' imply this tool is for complete project generation rather than single-step tasks, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over the sibling tools or when not to use it. An agent must infer that individual stages should be handled by the dedicated sibling tools.

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