manufacturing_list_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. 'List manufacturing orders' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. For a list 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 at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without 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 the tool's complexity (list operation with filtering parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, output format, or error handling. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (state, product_id, limit) with descriptions and a default for limit. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 'List manufacturing orders' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('manufacturing orders'), providing basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'manufacturing_list_boms' or 'sales_list_orders', leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes manufacturing orders from other listable entities.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, context for filtering, or comparison to siblings like 'manufacturing_create_order' or 'odoo_search'. Without any usage context, an agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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