Get Programs

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get all watering programs' implies a read-only listing operation with no side effects, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, describe result size or pagination, or mention any access requirements. This is minimally adequate but leaves safety traits to inference.

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 four words long, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler or redundancy. For a zero-parameter list operation, this is optimally concise.

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 zero-parameter listing operation with an output schema available, the description is nearly complete. It could be improved by explicitly naming get_program as the singular alternative or noting what fields are returned, but the output schema and the simple scope cover most of the need.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since the tool takes no inputs.

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 a clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('all watering programs'). The plural scope implies a list operation, which distinguishes it from the singular sibling get_program, though the distinction is implicit rather than stated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_program, add_program, delete_program, or run_station. The only hint is the word 'all', which implies listing, but no explicit use cases, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided.

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