get_program_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool returns ('RETURNERAR: Komplett programinformation' - Returns: Complete program information) and provides an example, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 structured with clear sections (DESCRIPTION, ANVÄNDNINGSFALL, RETURNERAR, EXEMPEL), but contains some redundancy. The 'ANVÄNDNINGSFALL' section lists multiple use cases that essentially restate the purpose, and the 'RETURNERAR' section could be more concise. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, but could be more efficiently written.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return information but leaves significant gaps. It covers what the tool does and what it returns at a high level, but doesn't adequately document parameters, behavioral constraints, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with this complexity level, it's minimally adequate but incomplete.

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. While it mentions the 'code' parameter in the example ('code="NA" för Naturvetenskapsprogrammet'), it doesn't explain the 'version' parameter at all. The description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by the tool name, failing to adequately document the two parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Hämta detaljerad information om ett specifikt program' (Get detailed information about a specific program). It specifies the verb ('Hämta' - Get) and resource ('program'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_program_versions' or 'search_programs' beyond the 'specifikt' (specific) qualifier.

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 'ANVÄNDNINGSFALL' (USE CASES) section provides implied guidance on when to use this tool (e.g., 'Djupdyka i programstruktur' - Deep dive into program structure, 'Planera studieväg' - Plan study path). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_programs' or 'get_program_versions', nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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