get_platform

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'compact' as a behavioral trait of the response, which is useful but minimal beyond what annotations provide.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, includes the key distinguishing detail ('compact', 'internal ID'), and contains zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter read operation with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It does not mention not-found behavior or how to obtain a valid platform_id, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. The phrase 'by internal ID' clarifies that platform_id is an internal identifier rather than a user-facing slug or name, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. With a single self-explanatory integer parameter, this is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('RomM platform summary'), and a clear lookup key ('by internal ID'). This distinguishes it from list_platforms, which fetches a collection, and from get_rom, which targets a different resource.

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 implies usage: call when you have a platform's internal ID and need a compact summary. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_platforms to discover IDs, leaving the selection logic partially implicit.

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