docmgr_detect_platform

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'Mode: Read-only' and adds behavioral context (checks config files, returns recommendations). It goes beyond annotations by explaining the detection process.

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?

Description is brief (3 short paragraphs), front-loaded with purpose, then usage, result, mode, detection details, and workflow. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 detection tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, mode, detection mechanism, and typical workflow. Minor omission: no mention of error handling if no platform detected, but overall complete.

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%—the 'project_path' parameter has no description. The description implies its purpose (project root where config files reside) through context like 'checks for platform-specific config files', but does not explicitly define the parameter or its expected format. Partial compensation.

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 clearly states the tool auto-detects documentation platforms (MkDocs, Sphinx, Hugo, etc.) or recommends one. It specifies the detection method (checking config files), making it distinct from sibling tools like docmgr_init or docmgr_validate_docs.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' context (first-time setup, unsure platform) and a 'Typical workflow' (run before docmgr_init). This helps agents decide when to invoke it, though it does not explicitly list situations to avoid.

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