cli_orchestrate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the orchestration prerequisite but omits critical safety information: whether execution is destructive, modifies files, runs asynchronously, or what output format to expect.

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 extremely brief at two sentences. While not verbose, the first sentence ('Execute tasks...') is information-poor and front-loaded with vague wording rather than specific actionable detail.

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?

Given this is an execution tool with mutation potential and zero annotations, the description is dangerously incomplete. It lacks safety warnings, output schema documentation, error condition details, and differentiation from the similarly-named 'orchestration' sibling.

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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions 'OpenCode/Copilot', which adds semantic context mapping to the forceBackend enum values, but does not elaborate on valid task formats or contextRoot implications beyond the schema.

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 states it executes tasks via OpenCode/Copilot orchestration, which identifies the mechanism but leaves 'tasks' undefined. Crucially, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'orchestration', leaving agents unclear which to choose.

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?

It provides one explicit prerequisite ('Requires orchestration enabled'), indicating when not to use the tool. However, it entirely lacks guidance on when to choose this over the sibling 'orchestration' tool or how to select between OpenCode and Copilot backends.

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