list_programs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It indicates a read-only list operation (implied by 'List'), but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as auth requirements, rate limits, or cost implications. The description is adequate but minimal.

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 two short sentences, each adding value. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and includes actionable guidance, with no wasted words.

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 tool is a simple list operation with an output schema, the description adequately states the purpose. However, it omits details about pagination, filtering, or the structure of the output beyond 'with their stages'. This makes it barely adequate for a tool with no parameter descriptions.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (limit, query) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what these parameters do or how to use them, leaving the agent to guess. This is a critical gap.

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 tool lists tracker and event programs with their stages, differentiating it from sibling tools like list_data_sets or search_metadata. The verb 'List' and resource 'programs' are specific and unambiguous.

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 advises using this tool before querying tracker/event data, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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