affiliate_cake_list_programmes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope (joined or available), the return type (array of Programme records), and natural pairings, but omits authentication requirements, pagination behavior, and parameter effects. For a read-only list tool this is moderate but not rich.

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 sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, usage triggers, and return/complementary tools. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage context, and return type, but with 6 undocumented optional parameters and no output schema, it lacks sufficient detail for full invocation confidence. It is adequate for a simple list operation but leaves questions about filtering and pagination.

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 never mentions limit, cursor, offset, search, status, or categories. All six parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.

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 verb ('List'), resource ('affiliate programmes'), and platform ('CAKE'), distinguishing it from sibling list_programmes tools for other networks. It also clarifies the scope ('joined or available to join') and provides example user queries.

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 when-to-use context with example queries ('which merchants am I working with?') and notes complementary tools (get_programme for drill-down, list_transactions for activity). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings.

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