list_programs

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish that this is a safe, bounded read operation. The description adds the useful detail that results include section names, but it does not discuss pagination, project scoping, or behavior when no programs exist; this is acceptable for a simple listing tool but not rich context.

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 six words, front-loaded, and free of fluff. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 simple, read-only one-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It would be more complete with an explicit statement that project_id is required to scope the listing, but the schema already marks it required, so the context is mostly covered.

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%, and the description never mentions project_id or explains how it scopes the listing. The parameter name 'project_id' is self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation beyond implying that programs belong to a project.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'programs' and adds the detail 'and their section names,' making the tool's action clear. It also differentiates from sibling list_sections by indicating that this enumerates programs with their associated section names.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_sections, project_summary, or get_program_context. The description implies a listing use case but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios.

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