affiliate_connexity_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the scope (joined or available programmes) and return type (array of Programme records), which is useful for a read-only listing tool. However, it does not mention pagination, auth requirements, or filter behaviors, which are important for list operations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then examples, and then relationship to sibling tools. It is efficient and focused, though the first sentence could be split for slightly better readability. Each sentence adds value.

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 explains purpose and high-level use cases, but with six undocumented parameters and no output schema, the agent lacks complete context. It does not explain pagination, filtering, default scope (joined vs available), or the structure of Programme records. The vague 'array of Programme records' is insufficient given the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories) with zero schema descriptions and zero coverage in the tool description. The description gives no guidance on what these parameters mean, how they interact, or their expected formats, leaving the agent with no semantic information beyond parameter names.

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 that the tool lists affiliate programmes on Connexity, including those joined and available to join. It provides specific example user queries and mentions the return type (array of Programme records), distinguishing it from the many sibling list_programmes tools by network and from get_programme/list_transactions.

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 says when to use it ('when the user asks...') and gives example natural-language queries. It also points to get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity, providing useful alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare against other list_programmes tools.

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