affiliate_webgains_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 vs. available to join) and the return shape (array of Programme records). However, it does not mention authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or whether both joined and available are returned in one call, which leaves some gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage triggers and relationships. Every sentence adds value: action + scope, when to use, output, and related tools. No wasted words.

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 gives a solid overview but lacks operational detail needed for a 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain pagination, filtering options, default status scope, or authorization prerequisites. It is adequate for a basic list tool but leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description provides zero explanation of any of the 6 parameters (limit, cursor, offset, search, status, categories). The agent only has parameter names to infer from, which is insufficient for correct invocation (e.g., accepted status values, format of cursor, interaction between offset and cursor).

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 affiliate programmes the publisher has joined on Webgains (or which are available to join)') with a specific resource (Webgains programmes). It distinguishes from siblings by naming the related tools get_programme and list_transactions, making it clear this is the list-level operation.

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 gives explicit trigger examples ('which merchants am I working with?', 'what programmes do I have on Webgains?') and context ('wants a partner inventory'). It also identifies complementary tools for drill-down and activity, implying when not to use this tool.

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