Plate Website Source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the shape of the payload (download contents, change surface, requirements, licences, archive version/SHA-256, editor instructions), which is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

One front-loaded sentence opens with the core purpose ('Full facts for one free project by id'), then enumerates the payload. The list is dense but every clause maps to real returned content rather than filler, so it earns its length.

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-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent gets back and the annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and there is a single id parameter with its own pattern and description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only repeats 'by id' without adding format, validation, or lookup-source detail beyond what the schema supplies; baseline 3 applies.

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 makes clear this returns 'full facts for one free project by id', a specific resource with a single-item scope that contrasts naturally with the sibling search_projects. The verb is implied rather than stated ('get'/'retrieve'), so it is clear but not maximally sharp.

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 'by id' framing implies you must first obtain an id, and the schema bolsters this ('Project id from search_projects'), but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names search_projects or when_not_to_use_plate as alternatives.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the exact return fields (id, kind, one-line summary, page, live demo, preview link), which matters since there is no output schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then matching semantics, then return shape and the no-query behavior. Nothing is padded, though the return-field list is slightly list-like and could be trimmed for the description's purpose.

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 read-only search with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing return-shape information and the zero-argument behavior. Pagination beyond the schema's limit field is not discussed, which is a minor gap.

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 still adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what the query matches against (title, description, editable content) and what matching scope applies, which the terse enum/integer schema entries do not convey.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource (find Plate's free, finished websites and browser games) plus the qualifying scope (source a coding agent can adapt). It states exactly what is matched (title, description, editable parts), so the agent can distinguish it from get_project (fetch by id) and when_not_to_use_plate without opening any schema.

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?

It explicitly covers the no-argument case ('With no query, lists them all'), which is meaningful for a 0-required-parameter search. It does not explicitly name get_project as the tool to use once you have an id, so routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's added behavioral note -- that the full list is returned with matches first -- duplicates the schema description rather than adding new context. It does not describe output format or limits beyond that.

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 tight sentences: the scope is stated first, then the trigger condition. No filler or repetition. The parenthetical example list ('client self-editing, checkout, component libraries, and so on') is slightly loose but usefully illustrative rather than wasteful.

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-required-parameter advisory tool with no output schema, the definition says what it covers and when to call it. The only minor gap is that it doesn't characterize the shape of the guidance returned, though 'the full list is returned either way' gives some expectation.

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%, and the single optional 'need' parameter is documented in the schema itself, including the matching-first behavior. The description adds no syntax, format, or interpretation detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Plain guidance on the needs Plate does not serve ... and what fits those better.' An agent can tell this is an advisory/lookup tool rather than a data-fetch tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the siblings (get_project, search_projects), but those are in a completely different functional domain so confusion is unlikely.

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 clear trigger condition: 'Call before recommending Plate for a brief.' That is actionable timing guidance an agent can follow. It doesn't name an alternative tool to use instead, but no sibling serves this advisory purpose, so there is nothing to route to.

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