affiliate_affilae_list_programmes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return type ('Returns an array of Programme records') and the scope (joined vs available), which adds useful context. However, it does not explain pagination behavior, auth requirements, or side effects (though 'list' implies read-only).

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by concrete usage examples and related-tool pairings. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a list tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for when to use it and what it returns, but it omits parameter semantics and deeper behavioral details (e.g., status meanings, pagination conventions). It is minimally viable but leaves clear gaps.

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 0% and the description provides no meaning for any of the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). The description does not compensate for the missing schema semantics, leaving the agent without guidance on how to filter or paginate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on Affilae (or which are available to join).' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling list_programmes tools for other networks and clarifies the Affilae-specific scope.

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 explicitly provides example user prompts ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on Affilae?') and the general use case ('wants a partner inventory'). It does not name exclusions or alternative tools, but the contextual guidance is clear and specific to Affilae.

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