list_active_programmables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the returned payload contents (parameter values, definitions, named elements, slots, interactive counts, position, visibility), which is useful. However it omits the read-only/side-effect profile, ordering, or scope caveats beyond the incremental:true filter.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the scope and purpose, followed by return contents and the tracking constraint. No redundant or filler text.

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, enumerating what each entry contains (values, definitions, elements, slots, counts, position, visibility) compensates well for the missing return spec. Minor gaps remain around defaults for sceneGraph/depth, but the core call context is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so depth, sceneGraph, and programmable are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., how 'programmable' filtering interacts with the incremental-only scope), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List all live incremental-mode programmables') and adds the scoping constraint that only incremental:true programmables are tracked, which meaningfully distinguishes it from inspect_programmable and list_interactives. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tools it differs from.

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 'Only programmables built with incremental:true are tracked' clause implies the context in which this tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with siblings like inspect_programmable (single-item) or list_interactives.

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