adapt_for_platform

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses what is returned (rules, platform list) and implies read-only behavior. However, it does not mention authentication needs or rate limits, though these are likely minimal for a lookup tool.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every word adds value, listing both the action and the output elements.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description completely explains the tool's function and output. No gaps remain.

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 0% (description does not repeat parameter details), but the description adds meaning by listing the valid platforms and clarifying that the parameter is the target platform. This goes beyond the enum list in the schema.

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 returns adaptation rules for reshaping content given a target platform, listing specific rule types (aspect, length, etc.) and all supported platforms. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'extract_atomic_content' and 'get_platform_specs'.

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 indicates when to use ('Given a target platform') but does not provide exclusions or explicitly mention alternatives among siblings. Context is clear but lacks guidance on when not to use this tool.

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