list_programmes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature and pagination, plus that each row includes candidate_version_id, which is useful. However, it omits auth requirements, rate limits, and other operational traits expected when no annotation coverage exists.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then elaborates on the correlation filter and sibling differentiation. Well-sized and mostly waste-free, though the multi-line phrasing is slightly verbose.

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?

For a read-only, paginated listing tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, and sibling differentiation adequately, so return values need not be explained. Minor gaps in operational context remain but nothing essential is missing.

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 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining candidate_version_id as the 'RSI Phase-0 correlation' and the mechanism for enumerating a candidate's descendants, plus clarifying status filtering.

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 ('List programmes') with scope ('optional attribution/status filters') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_active_programmes ('a paginated general listing across all statuses'). An agent can tell it apart without opening either 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?

Names the alternative (list_active_programmes) and the condition selecting it (all statuses vs. active only), and explains the candidate_version_id use case for enumerating a candidate's descendants. Context is clear, though it doesn't spell out explicit when-not-to-use cases.

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