affiliate_optimise-media_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 that the tool returns an array of Programme records and that it covers both joined and available programmes, which are key behavioral traits. It also implies a read-only list operation without explicit side effects, but it stops short of discussing pagination or authentication requirements.

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 a tight three-sentence paragraph that front-loads the core action and scope. Each sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second gives usage triggers, and the third describes the return type and related tools. There is no wordiness or repetition.

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 and no output schema or annotations, so the description needs to provide enough context. It covers the main purpose, return type, and typical use cases, which is useful. However, it omits any explanation of the filtering parameters (search, status, categories) and does not mention pagination, making it incomplete for an agent that needs to construct precise queries.

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 does not compensate by explaining any of the six parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). While parameter names like limit and cursor are self-explanatory, status and categories lack any guidance on allowed values. The description provides no additional meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess at filter 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 tool lists affiliate programmes on Optimise Media, with a specific action verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool by noting it covers both joined and available-to-join programmes, and it pairs with get_programme and list_transactions for related operations. The example user queries further clarify the intended purpose.

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 gives example queries and states 'Use this when...' for inventory requests. It also mentions pairing with get_programme for drill-down and list_transactions for activity, which indirectly guides when to use alternatives. However, it does not explicitly exclude other list_programmes tools across networks, but within the Optimise Media context the guidance is clear.

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