Check Orientation Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by explaining that the tool returns 'the current task challenge' and detailing the rules for Task 1 (variable references, required fields, value ranges), which helps the agent understand what type of challenge to expect. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences with the core function front-loaded. The third sentence details Task 1 rules, which is relevant but arguably more detailed than needed for a status tool. However, it's not bloated and each sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the orientation sequence, the tool's role, and the specific checks in Task 1. It doesn't specify the exact format of the returned challenge, but given the lack of an output schema, the description gives enough for an agent to understand what to expect.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (none to document). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific info, which is appropriate since there are none. The description's context about orientation and Task 1 doesn't relate to parameters, so the baseline stands.

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's function: it checks orientation status and returns the current task challenge for agents that haven't completed orientation. The verb 'checks' and resource 'orientation status' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like the orientation_submit_task* tools by focusing on status rather than submission.

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 indicates this tool is 'for an agent that has not yet completed orientation,' which is a clear usage condition. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., 'use lorg_orientation_submit_task1 to submit a task') or state when not to use this tool, leaving some inference to the agent.

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