platform_docs

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already covering the read-only and closed-world safety profile, the description adds the aggregation behavior: it collects multiple pages for one platform and includes the full liara.json reference. No side effects or failure modes are described, but none are required given the annotations.

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 about 60 words: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence output description, and formatted Args. No sentence is wasted, and the key action is 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?

The tool has only two parameters, an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), and annotations cover the safety model. The description covers purpose, output contents, and both parameters, leaving no essential invocation detail missing.

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 schema has 0% coverage, and the 'Args' section compensates by explaining that 'platform' is the target and 'needs' is an optional list of extra lookups, with examples ('disk', 'cron', 'websocket') and a maximum of 10 items. This is enough for an agent to construct valid calls.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('collect'), a specific resource ('deployment documentation for one platform'), and the intended end-goal ('ready to write a liara.json'). It also enumerates the return contents (quick start, deployment, env-var pages, liara.json reference), which separates it from the generic search_docs/read_page siblings.

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 phrase 'ready to write a liara.json' gives an explicit scenario for choosing this tool. It does not name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is unambiguous enough to route selection.

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