get_platform_specs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects, though it appears safe. The description could mention that it only retrieves specifications without modifying anything.

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?

The description is a single sentence listing the return fields and platforms, which is concise. However, it could benefit from better structure (e.g., separating return fields and usage instructions).

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?

Given one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and how to use the platform parameter. It is fairly complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by listing the enum values and explaining that omitting the platform parameter returns specs for all platforms. This goes beyond the enum names 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 provides platform specs for content adaptation, listing specific attributes (aspect ratio, ideal length, etc.) and platforms. It distinguishes from sibling tools like adapt_for_platform, which likely performs the adaptation.

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 implies usage by stating 'Omit for all' for the platform parameter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like adapt_for_platform. It lacks a clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use guide.

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