get_program

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 does disclose a real trait — that program metadata is truncated — and explains the flag-driven consolidation behavior. But it says nothing about permissions, whether the caller must be a program member, rate limits, or what the truncation means for completeness, leaving notable gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the resource statement is front-loaded before the flag guidance. The cryptic "(truncated)" marker is the only element that costs clarity without adding meaning.

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 the flag consolidation guidance is a useful addition. Still, with no annotations, an unexplained required handle parameter at 0% schema coverage, and an ambiguous truncation note, the description is only adequate rather than complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify with_scopes and with_exclusions (include structured scope and/or scope exclusions) and that they can be combined in one call, which is genuinely more than the bare titles offer. The required handle parameter — the sole identifier and the key to the whole call — is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 identifies the resource (program metadata and policy) but uses no verb and never states that it returns data for the single program named by the handle parameter. The parenthetical "(truncated)" is ambiguous — it could mean the tool's output is truncated or that the description itself was cut off, which muddies the stated purpose. It only weakly differentiates from siblings get_structured_scopes and get_scope_exclusions by noting that their data can be pulled "in one call."

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 second sentence implies a usage pattern: set with_scopes/with_exclusions to fold the sibling tools' data into a single call, which is a soft alternative to calling get_structured_scopes or get_scope_exclusions separately. However, it never says when to use this tool versus those siblings, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., authentication, program membership).

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