compare_platform_pattern

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses scope (three platforms, six pattern families) which is useful, but says nothing about the return shape, depth, or whether all three platforms are always covered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the parenthetical list of enum values duplicates the schema and consumes most of the text.

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?

With no output schema, the description should describe what a comparison result looks like (per-platform sections? differences?), and it does not. Adequate for calling the tool, incomplete for interpreting its output.

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% and the enum is fully documented in the schema, so the description's enumeration of the same six values adds no meaning beyond structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Membandingkan) and resource (Apple HIG UI patterns) plus the exact comparison axis (macOS, iPadOS, iOS). It is distinguishable from get_apple_hig_rule and the audit/scaffold siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 comparison-across-platforms intent implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance versus get_apple_hig_rule (single-rule lookup) or the audit tools, and no stated preconditions.

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