program_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that a miss is a normal result and provides thresholds for confirmed_count (>=2 settled, 1 is a hint). This is valuable context, though it does not describe the exact return structure or side effects (though none are expected for a query).

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 tightly structured in three sentences: purpose, usage timing, and result interpretation. Each sentence provides distinct and necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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 simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to call it, and how to interpret results. It omits detailed return formatting, but the provided semantics are sufficient for correct usage in the intended workflow.

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 single parameter 'program' is fully described in the schema with an example ('ssh'). The tool description does not add parameter-specific semantics or format details, so the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage 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?

The description states a specific action ('look up') on a specific resource ('persistent program registry') and clarifies the goal ('whether a program needs a PTY'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling process-management tools by focusing on registry querying rather than process operations.

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 explicit temporal guidance: 'Call BEFORE process_start.' It also explains how to interpret a miss and apply decision rules. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or direct users to alternative tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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