recently_updated_programs

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add semantic context. It adds the 'visible' scope and interprets 'recently updated' as relating to rules or scopes, but it does not clarify visibility semantics, return shape, or pagination. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the action, the resource, and the purpose with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with richly annotated safety properties, so the description is minimally viable; an agent can infer the basic behavior and defaults. However, it leaves parameter semantics undocumented and does not describe the result shape, which matters because no output schema 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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (type, limit, search, include_disabled). It therefore adds no meaning beyond the raw property names and enum/default values, leaving the schema to carry the full burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Liste les programmes visibles les plus récemment mis à jour') and adds a clear purpose: spotting potential rule or scope changes. It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_accessible_programs or search_programs by focusing on recency, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 phrase 'afin de repérer les changements potentiels de règles ou de scopes' gives the intended use case: use this when monitoring for recent program changes. It does not, however, mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as search_programs or list_accessible_programs.

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