engain_list_orders

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses pagination behavior (cursor/numItems), default projectId from environment, and a mutual exclusion constraint. It lacks details on rate limits or read-only nature, but for a list operation it is adequate.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action 'List' and efficiently conveys core functionality and key constraints with no redundancy.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers pagination, filtering constraints, and default project ID. It misses explaining createdAfter/createdBefore and the return format, but is relatively complete for a paginated list tool.

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?

With only 14% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining pagination (cursor, numItems), defaulting behavior (projectId), and the exclusivity of status and campaignId. It does not cover createdAfter/createdBefore but still adds significant value.

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 purpose: listing upvote/downvote orders for a project with pagination. It distinguishes from siblings like engain_get_order (single) and engain_get_orders_bulk (bulk) by specifying the filtering options.

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 specifies the filtering constraint 'Filter by status OR campaignId (not both)' which provides clear usage guidance. However, it could explicitly mention when to choose this tool over siblings like engain_get_orders_bulk.

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