list_active_programmes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys the intended dedup workflow, but does not state that it is read-only, what 'active' excludes (e.g., closed/archived programmes), or any listing behavior. For a risk-free no-param list tool this is adequate but thin.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the actionable workflow. No filler or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there are no parameters to cover. The description supplies purpose plus the dedup workflow, which is nearly complete for this tool; only the read-only nature and definition of 'active' are unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline for a no-param tool applies. Nothing in the schema needs compensating.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with a scope qualifier: 'List all active research programmes.' The word 'active' distinguishes it from the sibling list_programmes, so an agent can tell what set is returned without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to call it ('BEFORE create_programme to check whether a programme already covers your goal') and what to do instead when a match is found, naming formulate_hypothesis as the alternative. Nothing is left to inference.

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