filter_programs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Omitted filters are not applied' which implies independent filtering, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the 'refresh' parameter does (e.g., force fetch from API). The behavior of the 'refresh' parameter is completely unexplained.

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 with inline examples, making it efficient and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and the examples are directly integrated. However, the lack of any structure (e.g., separate parameter descriptions) slightly reduces clarity for the refresh parameter.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a basic understanding of filtering but falls short on explaining the 'refresh' parameter, return format, and what 'compactly' means. For a simple filtered list tool, it is adequate but not fully 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 provide meaning. It adds value for three parameters (bookmarked, offers_bounties, submission_state) by providing example values, but does not explain the 'refresh' parameter at all. Additionally, it does not specify data types, allowed values (e.g., whether submission_state has a fixed set), or null semantics beyond default null.

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 that the tool lists programs matching filters, and provides examples like 'all VDPs (offers_bounties=false)'. It specifies the resource (programs) and action (list with filters). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'list_programs', which may serve a similar unfiltered purpose.

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 gives contextual examples for when to use each filter (bookmarked, offers_bounties, submission_state), which implies usage scenarios. However, it lacks guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings like 'list_programs' or 'count_programs', and does not specify when not to use it.

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