mainPrograms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('Retrieves') but does not describe the return format, error behavior, or any requirements such as authentication. For a simple read tool, this is minimal but not misleading.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently states the action and target resource.

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?

Given no output schema, the description at least indicates what is returned ('main programs'). For a simple one-parameter read tool, this is largely sufficient, though it does not elaborate on response structure or preconditions like session requirements.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which already defines 'includeUrl' as 'The URL of the include.' With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieves' and identifies the resource as 'main programs for a given include', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like classIncludes or loadTypes. It is immediately clear what the tool does.

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 implies usage when one needs main programs for an include, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites or context where this tool is preferred.

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