list_programs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world), so the description is not obligated to restate that. It does add genuine context beyond annotations by explaining the verified/drafted provenance statuses and their trust implications, though it never says what the tool returns structurally or how many programs typically come back.

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 second sentence is a single sprawling colon-and-comma construction ("checked by program (codes, pages, word-for-word quotes, units, a test plan), not yet by a person") that is hard to parse and buries the actionable point. The parenthetical inventory of internal QA artifacts is tangential to an agent's decision to call the tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the burden of describing returns, and it only partially does — it implies programs carry a verification status but not what else a record contains (codes, names, degree types). The provenance explanation is a helpful addition but leaves the shape of the result unclear.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the 4 baseline applies. The trailing clause about verified/drafted status pertains to returned data rather than inputs.

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 is a noun phrase, "Programs GatorPath has requirement rules for," with no verb, so the agent must infer that this is a listing/enumeration tool. The resource is identifiable, but nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_program_requirements or compare_programs, which operate on the same program entities.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to call this versus get_program_requirements, compare_programs, or audit_progress. The only directive — "say so when planning with one" — concerns how to talk about drafted rules, not when to select this tool.

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