find_program_by_target

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It says nothing about matching semantics (exact vs. wildcard/subdomain matching), result shape, pagination, permissions, or whether multiple programs can be returned per target. The only behavioral hint is the list of accepted target kinds.

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?

It is a single front-loaded fragment with no wasted words, but the terseness crosses into under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no structure beyond the one line to guide an agent.

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 zero annotation coverage, zero schema documentation, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It never explains what a result looks like, how wildcard targets match subdomains, or how the platforms filter interacts with the lookup.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and only partly does. It clarifies that 'target' accepts a domain, URL, repo, or wildcard, but says nothing about the 'platforms' array — whether it filters or scopes the lookup, or what values it accepts.

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 clear reverse-lookup: given a target, return the program(s) that list it. The enumerated target kinds (domain / URL / repo / wildcard) make it distinguishable from siblings like find_programs and list_targets, which go in the other direction. It stops short of a proper verb phrasing (it is a question fragment), but an agent can still tell what it does.

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?

Usage is only implied by the framing: you have a target and want to know which programs cover it. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over find_programs, search_targets, or get_program, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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