jn_list_material_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, mention pagination behavior (though from/size parameters hint at it), or describe any side effects. The description provides minimal transparency beyond the tool's basic function.

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 very concise at 5 words, but it sacrifices important detail. Conciseness is positive, but here it comes at the cost of completeness, making it less useful.

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 complexity of 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the filtering capability via related_jnid, nor does it clarify pagination behavior. The description is incomplete for an agent to correctly use the tool without additional knowledge.

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 description explains none of the three parameters (from, size, related_jnid). Schema description coverage is 0%. While the schema provides types and defaults, the description adds no semantic meaning about what these parameters control or how they affect results.

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 it lists 'material orders' in JobNimbus, which is a specific resource. Among sibling tools, there is no other 'list material orders' tool, so it is distinguishable. However, the description lacks any additional context that would differentiate it further.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships to other tools. Given many sibling list tools exist, this is a significant gap.

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