Platform Info

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the HTTP method (GET), which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no authentication, or any other behavioral traits. The transparency is minimal.

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 a single, focused sentence that includes both the purpose and the endpoint. There is no redundant wording, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the core function.

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, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient but lacks details about the return format or what specific platform/hardware information is included. It is adequate for a basic info endpoint but does not fully elaborate on the expected response content.

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 tool has zero parameters, so according to the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. It correctly includes the endpoint, which provides useful context for invocation.

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 'Get platform/hardware info' with a specific verb and resource, and also provides the exact API endpoint (GET /sdapi/v1/platform). It is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on platform/hardware rather than specific components like memory or GPU.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without any context about scenarios, exclusions, or relationships to other info tools such as sdnext_memory or sdnext_gpu.

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