orchestrate_and_record

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that the tool is governance-gated and auto-logs to both chains, which is useful. However, it never states whether it mutates state, what permissions are required, what happens on failure, or what 'both chains' actually are.

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, but brevity is achieved through undefined jargon ('Two-chamber-govern-gated', 'Algernon') rather than clear, front-loaded information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, especially for a tool with four parameters and significant orchestration behavior.

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 the tool's complexity, four unannotated parameters, no output schema, and no annotation support, this description is far from complete. It omits parameter explanations, usage context, return behavior, side effects beyond logging, and relationships to the sibling tools, leaving an agent without enough information to invoke it 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 0%, and the description adds no meaning for any of the four parameters. The agent cannot infer what 'k' represents, what values 'flags' can take, or how 'actor' relates to the goal, leaving the input schema largely unexplained.

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 compound operation ('plan+dispatch') and a clear side effect ('auto-logged to both chains'), so it is more than a tautology. However, the key terms 'Two-chamber-govern-gated' and 'Algernon' are opaque, and the description does not differentiate it from siblings like dispatch_with_dependencies or recall_and_replan.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'govern-gated' hints at a governance condition, but it does not explain when an agent should select this tool over dispatch_with_dependencies or recall_and_replan, nor does it give 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.