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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get details,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling for invalid IDs, or the format of returned details. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with an example. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or redundancy. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity of a tool that retrieves program details, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should compensate more. It doesn't explain what details are returned, potential errors, or behavioral traits like performance. With 100% schema coverage for one parameter, the description is adequate for input but incomplete for overall usage, as it fails to address output or broader context adequately.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter documented as 'Program ID (e.g. A000045).' The description adds minimal value by repeating the example but doesn't provide additional context, such as the ID format constraints or what constitutes a valid program ID. Since the schema already covers the parameter well, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 with a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('LODA program by ID'), and provides an example ('A000045'). It distinguishes this from siblings like 'get_sequence' or 'search_programs' by focusing on retrieving details for a specific program ID rather than sequences or searching. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like 'eval_program' or 'get_stats', which might have overlapping contexts, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions retrieving details by ID but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over tools like 'search_programs' for finding programs or 'get_sequence' for related data. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a valid program ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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