runrunit_project_detect_platform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool does not infer platform from repository files, relies on tags_data/tag_list, and only 'suggests' a command rather than executing it. It does not detail failure modes or exact output, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Two sentences, with the main action and scoping condition front-loaded. Every clause adds value: the tag examples, the command-suggestion behavior, and the explicit exclusion of repository files.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly and understand the returned artifact (a suggested upload command). It omits edge cases such as unrecognized tag sets, but the scope is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 100%, with the task_id property already explaining that the task's tags define the platform. The description reinforces this but adds no new parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline without going beyond it.

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 ('Identifies') and resource ('project platform'), and adds the exact mechanism: task tags in Runrun.it. It also mentions the secondary purpose ('suggests the command to upload the development environment') and explicitly differentiates from file-based detection, which distinguishes it from sibling task tools.

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 clearly states the required context: platform detection is driven by task tags, so the agent should not attempt repository-file inspection. There is no explicit alternative tool named, but no sibling tool has the same detection role, and the description gives enough situational guidance.

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