get_program

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the response includes policy and a named set of declaration flags, which is useful semantic context, but an output schema exists so return content is largely redundant. No auth, rate-limit, or error behavior is disclosed.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the supplemental detail (flag names, parameter provenance) follows in short, scannable sentences. The enumeration of five declaration flags is slightly list-heavy but each name earns its place by defining expected response fields.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what the schema and annotations do not: the meaning of the handle argument and the identity of the declaration flags. Auth and pagination are non-issues for a one-record fetch. Nothing critical an agent needs to call it correctly 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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must carry the burden. It does: it explains that handle is the program handle sourced from list_programs and gives a concrete example value ('security'). That is meaningful semantics beyond the bare 'Handle' title in 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get one program, including its policy and declaration flags.' This clearly distinguishes a single-record fetch from the sibling list_programs, which is named as the source of the handle. It stops short of an explicit contrast sentence ('unlike list_programs, this returns full detail'), but the differentiation is readily inferable.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against alternatives like list_programs. The only practical direction is that the handle comes from list_programs, which implies the call sequence but leaves the choice to the agent. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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