affiliate_involve-asia_list_programmes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It conveys that the tool returns an array of Programme records and hints at both joined and available programmes, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or whether authentication is required. This is adequate but leaves several behavioral aspects unstated.

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 compact and well-structured: a single purpose sentence, followed by usage examples and complementary tool references. Every clause earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the action and network, making it easy to scan.

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 tool has six optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must cover a lot. It covers purpose, example queries, return type, and relationships to related tools, but it omits parameter semantics, pagination, and clarity on the 'available to join' ambiguity. The description is sufficient for a basic understanding but leaves notable 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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention any of the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories) or how they might be used. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, failing to bridge the coverage gap.

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 states a clear, specific action: 'List affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on Involve Asia (or which are available to join).' It names the exact network, distinguishes the tool from sibling list_programmes for other networks, and clarifies scope (joined vs. available). It also differentiates from get_programme and list_transactions by mentioning pairing, making sibling differentiation explicit.

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 provides concrete example user queries ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on Involve Asia?') and pairs the tool with get_programme and list_transactions, offering clear context for when to use it. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or direct comparison to alternative list tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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