List my organizations’ programmes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that all statuses are included and that programmes are created/changed only on the BugSecure website, which gives context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 three sentences: the first states the purpose and scope, the second gives usage guidance, the third notes a behavioral constraint. No waste, information is front-loaded and logically ordered.

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 list tool with optional pagination and an output schema, the description covers what is returned, how to use the results, and a key external modification source. The output schema defines the return format, so nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so both limit and offset are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 lists all programmes (including drafts, paused, closed) for the signed-in user's organisations that have AI triage access, and includes the triage deadline. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like list_org_reports (reports) and get_program (single programme).

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?

It gives explicit follow-up guidance ('Use the ids with list_org_reports and get_program_stats') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_programs or get_program. The context implies this is the canonical listing tool, but no when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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