get_program_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a non-mutating read ('Identify') and enumerates the returned metadata, but says nothing about cost, permissions, or whether the analysis is cached/expensive. For a parameterless read with an output schema, this is adequate but thin.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The enumerated field list partially duplicates what the output schema already declares, which keeps it just below a 5, but nothing is wasted.

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 tool with a full output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and return scope sufficiently; an agent need not be told the return shape. The only gap is the absence of any usage/routing context.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The field list in the description describes outputs rather than inputs, so it adds no parameter meaning (none is needed).

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?

States a specific verb ('Identify') and resource ('the target program') and enumerates the metadata returned, which is clearly distinct from per-item siblings like list_functions and list_imports. It stops short of naming a sibling or explicitly contrasting its scope, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the program-level metadata call, used before drilling into functions/segments. No prerequisites or ordering guidance are given.

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