get_gtts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Saying 'List all active' implies a read-only listing scoped to active orders, but it does not disclose pagination, return shape, authorization needs, or what happens with inactive orders.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, scope, and acronym expansion efficiently.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description is enough to know the broad operation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around return format, pagination, and differentiation from the singular get_gtt sibling.

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 schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and the description does not introduce confusing parameter-like language.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List all active GTT (Good Till Triggered) orders.' It also defines scope as active orders, but it does not explicitly distinguish this list operation from the sibling get_gtt tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 that the tool is for listing active GTT orders, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of get_gtt, get_orders, or other order-related siblings. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection hints.

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