PulseGate

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return content: one entry per platform plus an identifier count. It stops short of stating pagination, ordering, or freshness of the counts, and 'List' only implicitly conveys that this is a non-mutating read.

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 sentences, zero filler. The what-it-returns statement is front-loaded and the sibling-routing instruction follows, which is the right priority order for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what is enumerated, what each row contains, and why an agent would call it before lookup_project. Nothing required for correct invocation is absent.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps, and it adds useful adjacent context by naming the platform argument of lookup_project that this tool helps populate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('list every platform PulseGate records identifiers on') and even specifies the payload shape ('with how many identifiers it holds for each'). The second sentence makes the boundary with the sibling lookup_project explicit rather than leaving the agent to infer it.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use: call this to learn the vocabulary accepted by lookup_project's platform argument. It clearly frames the discovery workflow but does not say what to do when the platform value is already known (i.e., skip this and call lookup_project directly).

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses what is returned (identifiers, how they arrived, whether they were checked) and an explicit non-claim ('Makes no claim about whether the software is alive, maintained, or working'). It still omits auth/permission needs and failure behavior, so it is not complete.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, and each sentence earns its place — the scope disclaimer prevents a common misreading. Slightly verbose but no filler.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover return semantics — and it does (identifiers, provenance, verification status). With 3 optional parameters and 100% schema coverage, the remaining gap is only permission/error behavior, which is minor for a read-style lookup.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by framing the two mutually alternative lookup modes (slug vs. platform+value), which the schema itself does not state as an either/or.

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?

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (external identifiers PulseGate holds for one project), plus the provenance/verification fields attached to each. It is clearly distinguishable from list_identifier_platforms, though it never names the sibling to make the contrast explicit.

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 closing line gives the two lookup paths ('by slug, or by an identifier you already have'), which implicitly tells the agent which parameters to combine. There is no explicit when-to-use versus list_identifier_platforms guidance and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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