hackerone_list_programs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' implies read-only and 'Auto-paginates' is a useful disclosure, but return format, default behavior beyond page_size, and limits are not described.

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?

Two short clauses front-load the core action and scope, with no filler or repetition. Every word adds information.

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 single-optional-parameter list operation, the description and schema together cover invocation and pagination behavior. Its only real gap is not routing the agent to search_programs for broader discoverability.

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 coverage is 100%: page_size already has a description ('Max programs (default: all)'). The description's 'Auto-paginates' reinforces the schema but adds no new parameter meaning.

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?

Names a specific resource ('bug bounty programs') with a clear action ('List') and an access constraint ('you can access'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling hackerone_search_programs, so differentiation is left to naming.

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 access constraint implies a use case, but the description gives no guidance on when to choose this over hackerone_search_programs or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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