hub_list_platforms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses what is returned (platform features, supported channels, connection status) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects. An agent might incorrectly assume it could modify state. Without a readOnlyHint annotation, this is a notable gap.

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 fluff. The primary verb and resource are front-loaded, followed by a concise list of what is returned. 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description explains what the tool returns (features, channels, connection status), which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It doesn't mention pagination or potential large result sets, but for a list of supported platforms that's likely unnecessary. Minor gaps exist but the core is 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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description doesn't introduce any parameter-related confusion. It correctly focuses on the output.

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 'List' and the resource 'supported marketing platforms', which distinguishes it from the many hub_* action tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name any alternative tool, so it doesn't fully leverage sibling differentiation. Still, the purpose is unambiguous.

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: whenever an agent needs an overview of available platforms. But it provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or guidance on alternatives. Given the simple nature of a listing tool, this is acceptable but not explicit.

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