Orchestrate Multi-Agent Pipeline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the async nature and polling mechanism ('com polling de status'), but lacks details on failure handling, rate limits, or how to obtain results beyond polling. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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, efficient sentence that includes all essential information: the pipeline steps, async nature, and polling mechanism. No unnecessary 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?

For a complex async orchestrator with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the pipeline steps and polling. It could mention that it returns a task ID for polling, but the polling reference is sufficient. Slightly incomplete but mostly adequate.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds high-level context (executes pipeline) but no additional parameter-specific details. Following the baseline for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 executes the complete Multi-Agent pipeline (ANALYST → TESTER → ARCHITECT → DOC → MEMORY) as an async task, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like task_generate_tests_async which handle only sub-parts.

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 usage for full pipeline orchestration but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the sibling tool list contains many specific task tools, so the agent can infer this is for comprehensive analysis.

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