list_all_programs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the read operation ('list') but does not mention safety guarantees, authorization needs, or pagination behavior beyond the schema. The lack of any side-effect or mutability info is a gap, but not critical for a list operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence (9 words) that front-loads the core function. Every word contributes to purpose, but the brevity sacrifices guidance and transparency. Still, it is appropriately concise for a simple list tool.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits usage guidelines, behavioral context, and parameter semantics. An output schema exists but is unmentioned. The description feels incomplete for an AI agent to use reliably.

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 0%, yet the description only mentions 'pagination and optional keyword search'. It does not explain the purpose of 'page', 'page_size', or how the 'keyword' search functions (e.g., exact match, partial). The description adds minimal value beyond stating the existence of these features.

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 action ('list'), the resource ('programs'), and key features ('pagination and optional keyword search'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_program_details' (singular) and 'list_enrolled_programs' (enrolled-only).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist (e.g., 'list_enrolled_programs', 'get_program_details'), but no comparisons or exclusion criteria are mentioned. This forces the agent to rely solely on tool names for selection.

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