list_programs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses account-scoped visibility and the presence of status/reward info, but does not state whether results are paginated, ordered, limited, or provide any response shape. Adequate for a simple read-only list, but minimal.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, provides scope, and names the key output content without any filler or 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 zero-parameter list tool, the description is sufficient: it identifies the resource, the account scope, and the returned information fields. The lack of an output schema is partly mitigated by naming 'status and reward info', though exact response structure is not specified.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies.

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 has a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('Intigriti bug bounty programs'), and a scoping qualifier ('visible to this researcher account'). It also names the included output fields ('status and reward info'), making it distinct from the sibling scope-focused tools.

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 implies this tool is for getting an account-level overview of bug bounty programs with status and reward information. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like get_program_scope or recommend_program, leaving usage to inference.

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