list_programs

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: program policies are omitted from the results, and pagination boundaries (page_number starts at 1, page_size 1-100) constrain behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the omission caveat and the alternative, then the pagination constraints. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the remaining gaps an agent would care about: what is excluded from the listing, where to get the excluded data, and how paging behaves.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does compensate for both parameters by stating the page_number origin (1) and the page_size valid range (1-100). It omits the stated defaults (25 and 1), which are visible in the schema, so it is not quite exhaustive.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List programs') plus a clear scope ('the hacker account can access'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It also draws a boundary against get_program by noting that policies are omitted here, though it does not differentiate itself from the other list_* siblings.

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 explicitly routes the agent: if you need the program policy or declaration flags, call get_program instead. That is a concrete use-vs-alternative rule. It stops short of stating when this tool is preferred over the other list_* tools or any prerequisites.

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