validate_platform_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it validates and checks for issues, but does not clarify whether it modifies the project, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. Important behaviors like read-only nature or error handling are omitted.

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, concise sentence of 13 words with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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 (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, it could mention the type of output returned (e.g., validation result, list of issues) since there is no output schema.

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 for the single parameter 'platform', which already explains its purpose. The main description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for this dimension.

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 'validate' and the resource 'project for building on a specific platform', with added specificity of 'checking for issues'. Among siblings with similar names (e.g., validate_build_settings, validate_export), this description sufficiently distinguishes the tool's focus on platform-specific build validation.

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 validate_build_settings or validate_export_for_platform. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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