whodb_platform_runtime_readiness

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value by disclosing what is returned (runtime resources, deployment/readiness checks, warnings) and the important safety trait that secret values are not exposed.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by timing and return/behavioral notes. Every sentence carries weight, though the workspace clause slightly overlaps with schema 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 usefully summarizes what the tool returns and its non-destructive, no-secret-exposure nature. For a read-only, all-optional-parameter tool this is close to complete; only explicit alternative routing would improve it.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the nested workspace object and its defaulting behavior. The description's mention of workspace {host, org, project} per-call targeting without changing defaults largely restates what the schema already says, so it adds little beyond 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 specific verb (summarize) and resource (selected-project runtime readiness), which is more precise than most siblings. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent diagnostic tools like whodb_platform_project_health, whodb_platform_status, or whodb_platform_doctor, so the sibling separation is left implicit.

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 when-to-use context: 'Use this before function, transform, AI provider, or secret work.' That is actionable timing guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when NOT to use it, so it misses the top bar.

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