get_logs_config_archive_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it's a 'Get' operation and takes no arguments, but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it returns paginated results, or what format the response takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise with just two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second clarifies it takes no arguments. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded appropriately for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

For a zero-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose and parameter information. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks important context about what the response contains (e.g., list format, data structure), permissions required, or rate limits. The description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps that would help an agent use the tool effectively.

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 description explicitly states 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments,' which perfectly clarifies that there are zero parameters. With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the description adds valuable confirmation beyond what the empty schema provides. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets this by explicitly calling out the parameterless nature.

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: 'Get the current order of your archives.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('current order of your archives'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_archive' or 'get_logs_config_archives', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments,' this is parameter information rather than usage context. There's no indication of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other archive-related tools in the sibling list.

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