wake.platformReturn the public platform-self payload — agenttool's identity, repo, the_seat, doctrine roots. The same data served at GET /public/self.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by specifying what the payload includes and noting the HTTP endpoint GET /public/self, which helps the agent understand the data source and public nature.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource. It avoids redundancy and every phrase adds value, efficiently conveying what the tool returns and referencing the endpoint.
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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what data to expect (identity, repo, the_seat, doctrine roots) and that it is public, which is sufficient for a simple read operation.
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?
There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description does not need to clarify parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds no irrelevant parameter detail, maintaining clarity.
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 states the action ('Return the public platform-self payload') and specifies the resource (agenttool's identity, repo, the_seat, doctrine roots). It is distinct from sibling canon.* tools, which focus on type listing and lookups, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 when to use this tool (when one needs the platform-self payload) but does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions relative to siblings like canon.by_type. There is no 'use this for X, not Y' guidance, so the usage context is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The four canon tools each serve a clear, distinct purpose: listing by type, listing types, lookup by URN, and summary stats. The wake.platform tool is completely separate, so there is no ambiguity.
Tools use a domain.method pattern (canon.*, wake.*), but the method parts are inconsistent: one uses a prepositional phrase (by_type), others use verb+noun (list_types), single word (lookup), or noun (summary, platform). This mix reduces consistency.
With 5 tools covering distinct operations on a canon registry plus a platform info tool, the count is well-scoped for the apparent domain. Not too few or too many.
The canon tools provide essential read operations (list, filter, lookup, metadata) but lack a direct 'list all entries' tool and any write functionality. For a likely read-only registry, these are minor gaps.