orchestration

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions 'simulate' is read-only but fails to disclose behavioral traits of mutation actions (enable, disable, set_backends, set_config) including side effects, persistence, or reversibility.

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 well-structured sentences with zero waste. First sentence establishes purpose, second provides actionable guidance. Appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

Brief for a 9-parameter multi-action configuration tool with mutation capabilities. No output schema exists, yet description does not explain return values or response structure for status/logs queries.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed parameter descriptions. Description adds context about 'simulate' and 'logs' actions but does not clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., which params apply to which actions) beyond schema constraints.

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?

States specific verb (manage) and resource (CLI orchestration settings) and distinguishes internal actions. However, it fails to differentiate from sibling 'cli_orchestrate', creating potential selection confusion.

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?

Provides specific guidance for 'simulate' (read-only prediction) and 'logs' (runtime evidence) actions. Lacks high-level guidance on when to choose this tool over 'cli_orchestrate' or prerequisites for configuration changes.

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