jlcpcb_pcb_get_wip_process

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation is a read-only status retrieval ('get') and that credentials are required, which partially informs the agent about authentication needs. However, it does not mention what the response contains, potential side effects (though likely none), or any rate limits. This is a minimal but acceptable level of disclosure for a simple status-check tool.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the key prerequisite. Every word earns its place: the verb, resource, and credential requirement are all essential. There is no fluff, repetition, or unnecessary jargon.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: the action (get WIP status), the target (an order), and the prerequisite (API credentials). It does not explicitly describe the return format, but 'work-in-progress production status' implicitly indicates what the response will contain. The sibling context shows this is one of several order-related tools, and the description sufficiently distinguishes its specific purpose. Given the low complexity, the description is nearly complete, only missing explicit output details.

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 input schema fully describes the single parameter 'order_uuid' as 'Order UUID,' achieving 100% schema coverage. The description's phrase 'for an order' merely echoes the schema and adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter format, constraints, or how to obtain it. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not add value beyond that.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'get the work-in-progress production status for an order.' This distinguishes it from siblings like jlcpcb_pcb_get_order_detail, which likely covers broader order details. The 'Official PCB API' prefix adds authoritative context, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies usage by stating the purpose (e.g., use this to check WIP status), but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like jlcpcb_pcb_get_order_detail or jlcpcb_tdp_order_process. The only prerequisite mentioned is 'Requires API credentials,' which is a general constraint rather than a usage scenario. This is adequate for an implied-use tool but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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