list_programs

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description does not need to state the operation is safe. It adds context that the tool returns programmes/semesters and allows filtering, which is useful operational context beyond the annotations, but it does not mention pagination, result ordering, or performance characteristics.

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 goes straight from the resource to the filtering options. The parenthetical list of degree types adds a little length but is arguably useful for disambiguating the scope and does not repeat the schema content.

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 output schema and full parameter documentation, the description covers the essential semantics without needing to explain return values. It optionally mentions a semester scope but does not mention edge cases like default semester; these are already captured by the parameter descriptions. It leaves some sibling relationships but not structurally missing.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds that the list is filterable by department and by name, which mirrors the schema's query and department fields, but it does not add details beyond the schema for limit, semester, or default behavior.

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 identifies the resource (degree programmes and extension curricula) and the scope (offered in a semester) with optional filters, giving an agent a clear sense of the tool's output. It distinguishes the tool from sibling resource types (courses, staff, exams), though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a list of degree programmes or curricula is needed, optionally filtered by department or name. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_courses or get_program_courses, leaving the comparison to the agent, but the semantic focus on programmes gives reasonable context.

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