affiliate_kwanko_list_programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating it returns an array of Programme records and notes that the tool can list both joined and available programmes. However, it omits details about pagination (cursor), authentication requirements, or how the 'available to join' vs 'joined' distinction is represented, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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, well-structured, and front-loaded with the action and resource. It includes usage examples and return type without unnecessary fluff. Minor room for improvement in compactness, but it earns its length.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description only explains the general purpose and return type. It fails to describe parameter semantics, pagination behavior, or how filtering (status, categories, search) works. The pairing with get_programme helps, but the missing parameter details and lack of output schema leave the agent under-equipped to use the tool correctly.

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 schema has 5 parameters (limit, cursor, search, status, categories) with 0% coverage (no descriptions). The tool description provides no explanation of what these parameters do, how they should be formatted, or their constraints. This is a major gap since schema coverage is zero and the description does nothing to compensate.

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 action (List), resource (affiliate programmes), and scope (on Kwanko), distinguishing it from other networks' list_programmes tools. It also clarifies the dual nature (joined or available to join) and provides example user prompts, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit example queries that should trigger this tool ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on Kwanko?') and suggests complementary tools (get_programme, list_transactions), giving clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly exclude other networks or explain when not to use it, but the Kwanko-specific naming and examples make usage reasonably clear.

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