whodb_platform_hosts

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

Annotations cover read-only, idempotent and open-world traits, but the description adds real context on top: no server contact, the caveat that saved credentials may have expired, and that status is what actually validates the login. That credential-staleness warning is behaviorally meaningful and not present in annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the offline constraint. Slight redundancy with structured fields ('without changing defaults' duplicates the schema note), but no wasted filler.

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 an output schema, full parameter coverage and annotations already in place, the description only needs to supply purpose, the credential caveat and targeting semantics, all of which are present. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 schema's own workspace description is richer than the tool description (fallback order, discovery tools). The description's 'per-call targeting without changing defaults' mostly repeats the schema's 'Does not change the default host', so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'List saved platform hosts and account metadata', plus a scope qualifier 'without contacting servers'. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling status tool ('status checks the selected login'), though it never names whodb_platform_status, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

Gives clear context for when this is appropriate (enumerating saved hosts/accounts offline) and signals the alternative behavior of status checks for validating a login. It stops short of an explicit when-not rule or naming the alternative tool, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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