whodb_platform_app_sdk

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile, and the title duplicates the description verbatim. The description's one addition — that workspace targeting applies 'without changing defaults' — is genuinely useful session-state context, but it is also stated in the schema for the workspace object, so it adds little beyond what structured data already provides. No behavior around missing categories, auth requirements, or result shape is disclosed.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the secondary workspace-targeting note follows. The inline {host, org, project} shorthand is compact rather than redundant.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers the workflow origin of the input and how to target a workspace without side effects, which is close to enough. It stops short of describing what the returned 'usage' contains or what happens when the category name doesn't resolve, which is the only meaningful remaining 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 description coverage is 100% and the nested workspace object documents host/org/project plus the resolution order (session default set by whodb_platform_session_use, then saved defaults), so the schema carries the burden. The description's restatement of the workspace shape and 'without changing defaults' is a useful summary but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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 ('look up') and resource ('app SDK usage') scoped to a single category, and explicitly ties itself to the sibling 'whodb_platform_app_sdks' as the source of valid categories, which cleanly separates the singular detail tool from the plural list tool. Slight deduction because 'SDK usage' is ambiguous — it could mean usage documentation, usage examples, or usage statistics — so the agent still doesn't know exactly what payload to expect.

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 establishes a clear two-step workflow: enumerate categories with whodb_platform_app_sdks, then look up exact usage for one of them here. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative beyond the list tool, but for a narrow detail-lookup tool the context is sufficient to route correctly.

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