release_stuck_orders

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Re-checking blockers' hints at internal logic but does not disclose side effects, failure modes, or whether orders are modified. Missing details on what 'release' entails (e.g., sending to venue).

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous words. Essential information is front-loaded: action, resource, and optional filter. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a single optional parameter, the description covers purpose and parameter usage adequately. However, it omits expected return value (e.g., success count), prerequisites, and potential errors. Could be more complete for a real-world agent.

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?

Input schema covers the parameter with a clear description, but the tool description adds concrete examples ('stale_md', 'venue_down') which clarify valid values beyond the schema. This adds meaningful context.

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?

Description clearly states 'Release stuck orders, re-checking blockers' with a specific verb and resource. The optional filter adds precision without ambiguity. Among sibling tools like 'validate_orders' or 'check_pending_acks', this tool's purpose is distinct and unambiguous.

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?

Description provides guidance on when to use the optional 'reason_filter' with examples, but does not specify when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., 'validate_orders' for non stuck orders). Lacks explicit when-not conditions.

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