recommend_program

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: it scores only active programs, uses the skills manifest, returns ranked results, and applies a decaying recency boost. It does not describe possible side effects or output structure, but for a read-like ranking operation these omissions are relatively minor.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core operation and result, then adds the relevant recency-boost nuance in a concise second sentence.

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 tool with no output schema, the description usefully states that the result is a ranked list of programs and explains the scoring context. The main gap is that it does not specify the output item shape or error conditions, but the essential behavior needed to decide whether and how to call it is present.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds some conceptual context for the recency boost ('decaying', 'newly-updated programs surface higher'), but it does not add meaningful detail about topN or a need to clarify parameter formats beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Score all active programs against your skills manifest' and returning them 'ranked best-fit first'. This clearly distinguishes it from the siblings (list_programs, get_program_scope, diff_scope) by emphasizing ranking and fit scoring rather than plain listing or diffing.

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?

It clearly conveys the intended use case—when you need programs ranked against your skills manifest—but does not explicitly contraindicate when to use list_program or get_program_scope instead. The context is clear enough that an agent can infer when this is the right tool, but no exclusions or alternative routes are named.

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