ig_list_working_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. It only states 'List open working orders' without disclosing details like authentication requirements, whether the list is paginated, sorting behavior, or side effects (though it is a read operation). The word 'open' is a filter but adds little behavioral context.

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, focused sentence that mentions the verb, resource, and scope. Every word earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (0 parameters, output schema present, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It does not need to explain return values due to the output schema. However, a bit more context about the 'active account' concept or confirmation that this is a read-only operation would have made it slightly more complete, but the description remains adequate for a straightforward 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Since there are no parameters to explain, the baseline for 0 params applies. The description adds no parameter-specific info, but none is needed.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'working orders', and the scope 'in the active account'. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ig_list_positions by naming the resource explicitly.

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 phrase 'in the active account' provides some context, but the description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ig_list_positions or working-order-specific tools. Usage is implied but not clearly guided.

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