Open a saved program

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers safety. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it requires the user's account and specifies that the result is a summary plus live-timeline URL. No contradiction with annotations.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then gives the output and the account requirement. Every part earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool returns, identifies the target resource, and notes the necessary account context. No critical information 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 100%, so the schema already documents program_id and token clearly, including the token's conditional omission and the program_id's source. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond restating 'by id', so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Open'), a specific resource ('one of the user's saved programs'), a key selector ('by id'), and the expected result ('summary plus live-timeline URL'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_my_programs, load_run, and load_public_recipe without needing to open the schema.

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 clear context: this is for opening a saved program belonging to the user, and it notes the prerequisite that the user must have a Rhylthyme account. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended use case is evident from the title and description.

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