get_manufacturing_order

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only says 'get details', which implies a read operation, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as what happens if the order is not found, what fields are returned, or any permission requirements. This is a minimal level of transparency for a getter that has no output schema.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word is necessary, and there is no extraneous information or repetition. It is an ideal example of minimalism without losing clarity.

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?

The tool is simple: one parameter and no output schema. The description is enough to understand the basic purpose, but it lacks information about the return structure and potential error cases. Given the low complexity, a score of 3 reflects that it is minimally viable but not fully complete, especially without any annotation support.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the 'id' parameter or its format. The parameter is a simple numeric ID, which is self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For a low-coverage case, this is insufficient.

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 action (get details) and the resource (a manufacturing order), using the specific verb 'obtenir' and the resource 'un ordre de fabrication'. It is distinct from list_manufacturing_orders, though it does not explicitly mention that distinction. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 like list_manufacturing_orders or get_order. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing the order ID, or any context where this tool is preferred. The agent is left without explicit usage direction.

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