platform_tool

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable action-level behavior: schema only retrieves an input schema, while call validates and executes arguments, and existing operation checks apply. It still leaves the nature of destructive side effects vague, but it does not contradict 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 compact and front-loaded, covering the core mechanism, action modes, name examples, and skill pointer in four sentences. The primitive-name list is useful but slightly catalog-like.

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?

It covers the essential dispatch workflow and references an external skill for workflows, and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. Still, for a destructive open-ended gateway with many primitives, it lacks routing guidance versus direct siblings and fuller argument-shape guidance.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the action values and gives examples for name, but it does not fully describe how arguments must match the schema returned by action=schema or what constraints apply to the open-ended arguments object.

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 a specific mechanism: invoking advanced Vesper primitives by name, with action=schema and action=call modes. It gives concrete primitive-name examples, but it does not explicitly distinguish this dispatcher from direct sibling tools such as objc_query_instances or ui_snapshot.

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 implies this tool is for advanced primitives not loaded in the full catalog and points to the vesper-ios skill for workflows. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance versus the many direct sibling tools.

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