validate_platform_export

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. An agent cannot assess risks or permissions.

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, clear sentence with 12 words, conveying the core action without extraneous content. It is appropriately front-loaded.

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 abundance of sibling validation tools and the simplicity of the input schema, the description is insufficient. It does not specify output, differentiate from similar tools, or provide enough context for correct tool selection.

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 single parameter 'platform' is described in the schema as 'Platform to validate for', and the description adds no additional meaning. Though schema coverage is 100%, the description does not clarify valid values or expected format.

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 states the tool validates the project for export on a specific platform, but does not differentiate from very similar siblings like validate_export_for_platform and validate_platform_build, leaving ambiguity about which tool to use.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not provide any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it hard for an agent to choose appropriately among many validation tools.

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