hackerone_get_program_details

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the output categories (identity, timeline, bounty, metrics, trust, my_stats, policy, scope_summary) and the section-filtering behavior, but it does not describe the default full-response shape, authentication needs, or any rate/visibility caveats. This is useful but not comprehensive.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the main purpose and category list, then appends the optimization hint. No filler or redundancy.

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 retrieval tool, the description plus schema provides enough to invoke it correctly: the required program handle, the optional section filter, and the set of available data categories. Since there is no output schema, a little more detail about the structure within each category would make it fully complete, but it is not necessary for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3; the description mainly reiterates the sections-filter concept already in the schema ('Omit for everything'). It adds little new parameter meaning beyond reinforcing that sections restrict the response.

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 clearly identifies a resource (program) and action (get full details) and enumerates the data categories returned, so an agent knows what it will receive. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_program_scope or get_program_weaknesses, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

'Pass sections for only what you need' gives a practical usage hint for filtering output and implies the tool is the right choice when you want comprehensive program data. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as get_program_scope or list_programs, so usage guidance is only implied.

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