platform_agents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists actions and notes that compilation happens implicitly during version creation, but does not explicitly disclose side effects (e.g., save_dsl mutates state), permissions, or error behaviors. The mutation nature is only implied by 'update agent DSL'.

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 moderately concise, front-loads the core purpose ('Manage agents within a project') and then lists actions. It includes a broad overview of Arch that is generic across platform_* tools, adding slight redundancy, but the structure is still efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return values for each action, but it only vaguely says 'get (agent details including DSL)' without specifying format. It also lacks error handling, pagination, or behavior on invalid input. The mention of implicit compilation is useful, but the overall completeness is insufficient for a tool with three actions.

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?

Schema coverage is 75%, and the description adds meaning to the 'action' parameter by enumerating its values and linking them to required parameters (e.g., agentName for get/save_dsl). However, it does not elaborate on the other parameters beyond what the schema already provides, and the missing 25% (action) is partially compensated by the action list.

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 manages agents within a project and enumerates three specific actions (list, get, save_dsl), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like platform_projects or platform_versions. The verb 'Manage' is specific to the resource (agents).

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?

It provides clear context on the actions available (list, get, save_dsl) and the scope (within a project), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or mention exclusions. It implies usage for agent management but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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