whats_openPrograms currently OPEN for registration, freshest first — Junely’s honesty signal. Optional filters: region, category, age, vertical.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| age | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| vertical | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that results are sorted 'freshest first', but doesn't detail pagination, rate limits, or behavior with no results. With annotations covering core safety, a 3 is appropriate.
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, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
With five parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain return format, default filtering, or pagination behavior, leaving gaps for a simple listing tool.
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?
Description lists four of five parameters as 'optional filters' but doesn't explain their meaning beyond that. The limit parameter is omitted entirely. Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate more, but it remains vague.
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 tool returns programs currently open for registration, sorted by freshness. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_programs (general search) and get_program_details (specific program).
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it's for open programs, but doesn't mention exclusions or recommend alternatives like search_programs for broader queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get details, save to watchlist, search, set alerts, and view open programs. No overlapping functionality that could cause confusion for an agent.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_program_details, search_programs, watch_program), but 'whats_open' breaks the convention (no underscore, abbreviation) and 'save_camp' uses 'camp' while others use 'program', introducing inconsistency.
With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped for a camps and after-school discovery service. Each tool earns its place and covers the core user workflow without being overwhelming or insufficient.
The set covers search, details, saving, alerts, and open availability—core tasks. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to remove from watchlist or cancel alerts, but the main lifecycle is addressed.