list_programs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists programs but omits critical details: it doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by the 'page_size' parameter), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). This is a significant gap for a tool with potential complexity.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication, pagination, or output format, which are essential for an agent to use the tool effectively. For a list operation with potential complexity, more context is needed to guide proper invocation.

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 the schema fully documents the single parameter ('page_size') with its type, constraints, and default. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage, but it doesn't compensate with additional context like typical usage patterns.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('bug bounty programs you have access to on HackerOne'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (like 'get_program_scope' or 'get_program_weaknesses'), which would require mentioning that this returns a list of programs rather than details about a specific program.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare it to sibling tools, or specify scenarios where it's appropriate (e.g., initial discovery vs. detailed analysis). This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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