ux_list_platforms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral information. It states the tool 'shows' platforms grouped by category, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's function. The emoji adds visual context without being distracting. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated immediately. However, the second sentence could be more tightly integrated with the first.

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 simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks important context about output format, authentication requirements, and relationship to sibling tools. Given the complexity is low (single optional parameter), the description meets minimum requirements but could be more complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear enum parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'agrupadas por categoría' which aligns with the optional 'category' parameter, but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides about filtering by category. No additional parameter context is given.

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 verb ('Muestra' - shows/list) and resource ('plataformas soportadas para análisis UX') with specific scope ('agrupadas por categoría'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'ux_detect_platform' or 'ux_compare_platforms' by focusing on listing rather than detection or comparison. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'ux_list_laws' which is a similar listing function for different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use this versus 'ux_detect_platform' (which detects platform from user agent) or 'ux_compare_platforms' (which compares platforms). There's no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or relationship to other tools in the UX analysis workflow.

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