search_programs

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a search operation but does not mention pagination, sorting, fuzzy matching, or that it returns a paginated list. It also does not disclose any side effects or auth requirements. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious 'search' semantics.

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 concise, with a brief intro and a bulleted use-case list. It avoids excessive verbosity and front-loads the primary action. The context sentence about programs adds useful background. It could be slightly tighter, but it is well-structured and readable.

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's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a basic overview and use cases, but it does not explain the response structure or cover all filtering capabilities. It is adequate for a simple search tool but leaves some gaps, such as what a 'Program' object contains or how results are returned.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'name', 'status', and 'creator' as filter fields, which aligns with the schema, but it does not add any new meaning beyond the schema descriptions. It does not explain concepts like comma-separated multi-value parameters or pagination defaults, so it adds no extra value.

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's function: 'Search for Yunxiao Program (Project Set) List.' It defines what a Program is, distinguishing it from projects, and lists specific search capabilities (by name, status, creator). This provides a clear verb+resource+scope and differentiates from sibling search_projects.

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 usage through the 'Use Cases' list, such as querying by name, status, and creator. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like search_projects, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisite conditions. The context is clear but no explicit guidance on alternatives is given.

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