list_platforms

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses input (none), output structure, version caching behavior, and auth method. This is sufficiently transparent for a read-only list tool, though it doesn't explicitly state idempotency or rate limits.

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 highly concise and well-structured with separate lines for input, output, version notes, and auth. Every sentence provides essential information with no redundancy.

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?

Given there are no input parameters and an output schema is described, the description is complete. It includes caching guidance and auth details, which are valuable for correct usage.

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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description correctly states 'Input: None', meeting the baseline for zero parameters. No additional semantic info is needed.

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 it lists platforms and permission scopes the agent has access to. The verb 'List' and resource 'platforms' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like use_platform which involves using a platform.

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 usage for retrieving platform information and caching advice, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. However, the context is clear enough given the sibling names.

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