orchestrate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only gives high-level steps without disclosing whether execution blocks (wait param), how failures are handled, or if there are side effects. The description omits key behavioral details like async behavior and results structure.

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 a single sentence with a clear action verb and a concise list of capabilities. It is front-loaded and contains no wasteful words.

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?

This is a complex orchestration tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, but the description fails to explain return value structure, error handling, or how assertions and timeout factor in. It is insufficient for an agent to invoke 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 high (80%), so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; the parameter details are left to the schema, which already covers most 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 states the tool orchestrates a complex task and lists specific capabilities (decompose, inject subtasks, monitor, return results), which distinguishes it from siblings like metrics or assert.

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 implies use for complex tasks require decomposition and monitoring, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like coordinator or inject, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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