mainPrograms

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 mentions 'retrieves,' implying a read operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens if the include is invalid. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly, with every part earning 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'main programs' entails (e.g., format, structure, or examples of returned data), nor does it cover error handling or dependencies. For a retrieval tool with no structured output information, this leaves too many unknowns for effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'includeUrl' clearly documented as 'The URL of the include.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as URL format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 states the tool 'retrieves the main programs for a given include,' which provides a clear verb ('retrieves') and resource ('main programs'), but it does not differentiate from siblings like 'classIncludes' or 'objectStructure' that might also retrieve program-related data. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what distinguishes this retrieval from others.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'classIncludes' or 'findObjectPath' that might retrieve similar information, the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately, leaving usage ambiguous.

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