get_platforms

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the useful detail that the list is 'fetched dynamically from the build system,' indicating potential variability. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior or discuss any side effects, errors, or authentication needs, which is acceptable for such a simple getter.

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 sentences with no redundant language. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds relevant context about dynamic fetching. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, has output schema), the description covers the essential points: what it returns and the dynamic nature of the data. It does not mention prerequisites or edge cases, but for a basic getter this is sufficient. The only missing element is usage differentiation, which is covered under usage guidelines.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to clarify. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds nothing beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 tool retrieves all available platforms and their supported architectures from ALBS, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not name any sibling tools to distinguish itself, so it stops short of a 5.

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 like get_products or get_flavors. It simply states what it does without mentioning conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer.

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