get_program_details

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 what data the tool returns (policy, response times, metrics, etc.) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is required, or error behavior (e.g., if the program handle is invalid). The description implies a safe read operation but lacks explicit behavioral details.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, listing the key data points concisely. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists what information is returned (policy, response times, metrics, bounty splitting, submission state). It is sufficient for an AI agent to understand what the tool provides, though it could mention any constraints like program availability.

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% with one parameter (program_handle). The schema description says 'Program handle (e.g. 'uber', 'github')', which adds example values. The tool description reinforces that the handle identifies a single program but does not add semantic depth beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed info about a single program', listing specific data types like policy, response times, metrics, bounty splitting, and submission state. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_programs (which lists all programs) and get_program_scope (which returns scope details).

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 implies usage for retrieving details of a specific program but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_programs or get_program_scope. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or contextual comparisons.

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