list_platform_targets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation (list) but adds no context about pagination, scoping, or read-only nature. The schema covers pagination parameters, so the description is minimally adequate but does not enrich beyond the obvious.

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, information-dense sentence with a clarifying parenthetical. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 simple list operation with two optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly identifies the resource type and the action, and the schema fills in parameter details. It could add a note on return type, but the tool name and description imply a list of platform targets.

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 input schema already documents both parameters (limit, offset) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('platform targets') and clarifies the meaning with '(device/OS/browser targeting)'. This distinguishes it from other list_*_targets tools such as list_geo_targets or list_data_key_targets, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 for listing platform targets but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_platform_target for a single target. It lacks a clear 'when not to use' or reference to sibling tools, leaving the decision to inference.

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