apex_get_program

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden and does not meet it. It never states that this is a read-only operation, whether the returned text is large enough to need pagination, or what form the program text takes, so the agent must guess at the cost and shape of the call.

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?

A single tight sentence with the scope conditional front-loaded and no padding. It is efficient, though the fragmentary phrasing costs a little clarity compared with a full verb-led statement.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back and the default behavior, which is close to sufficient. Missing pieces are the outlet identifier format and the read-only nature, both of which an agent needs to call this correctly and safely.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter, and it does explain that omitting outlet returns all outlets—useful given the null default in the schema. It does not say what an outlet identifier looks like (name vs. numeric ID) or how the multi-outlet response is structured, leaving a real gap.

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 names the resource ("Apex program text") and its scope (one outlet, or all when omitted), which distinguishes it from apex_get_outlets and apex_get_config at a high level. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and "program text" is left undefined—an agent cannot tell whether this is configuration code, a schedule, or a feed routine.

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 only guidance is the implicit default behavior when outlet is omitted, which is really parameter semantics rather than when-to-use advice. Nothing tells the agent when to pick this over apex_get_outlets, apex_get_config, or apex_feed_status, nor when a single-outlet call is preferable to the all-outlets call.

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