get_orders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely meets it: it declares 'Read-only, not confirm-gated' and states the passthrough return behavior ('Returns OctoBot's own JSON body unchanged (NFR-8)'). Minor gaps remain, such as result ordering or volume limits, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is strong disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded before the endpoint mapping and behavioral notes. Every sentence carries distinct information — scope, HTTP mapping, safety, and return behavior — with no 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?

For a parameterless list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope ('every order... open and historical'), the underlying endpoint, side effects (read-only), the confirmation model, and the return contract. Nothing an agent needs to know before calling it is missing.

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 takes zero parameters and schema description coverage is trivially 100%, so there are no parameter semantics the description must document. Per the zero-parameter baseline, the description's silence on parameters is acceptable; nothing is left unexplained.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List every order OctoBot currently knows about,' and explicitly scopes coverage to 'open and historical.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_trades and get_positions by naming the resource, and from clear_orders_history and cancel_order by framing the operation as a read-only listing.

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?

No explicit alternatives or when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance is given. The resource scope and 'Read-only, not confirm-gated' phrasing imply this is the safe read path for orders, but the description never points to siblings like clear_orders_history or cancel_order for mutating needs — the agent must infer that separation itself.

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