intigriti_list_programs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions access restrictions and the return fields, but does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only, nor does it discuss pagination, rate limits, or side effects. For a simple listing operation, this is somewhat adequate but incomplete.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and free of redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description clearly explains what the tool does and what it returns. It does not mention pagination or authentication prerequisites, but for a listing operation with no other structured information, this is fairly complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description is not expected to explain any. The schema coverage is trivially 100% with no params, and the description adds no parameter-related details because none exist. The baseline for 0 params is 4.

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), the resource (bug bounty programs on Intigriti), and the scope (that you have access to as a researcher). It also mentions the return details, making it distinct from sibling tools like intigriti_get_program which targets a single 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 clear context for when to use the tool: to list all accessible bug bounty programs. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the name and 'all available' phrasing imply it is the correct tool for an overview, as opposed to obtaining a single program's details.

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