get_platform_usage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' instructions, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data vs. text, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states the action ('Get'), target ('platform-specific usage instructions'), and subject ('Hugeicons'), with zero redundancy or fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., text, JSON, examples), how to interpret results, or error handling. For a tool that presumably returns instructional content, more context on the return format is needed.

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%, with the parameter 'platform' fully documented in the schema including its enum values. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what 'usage instructions' mean for each platform or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool's purpose as retrieving 'platform-specific usage instructions for Hugeicons', which is clear but vague. It specifies the resource ('usage instructions') and target ('Hugeicons'), but lacks detail on what these instructions entail or how they differ from general documentation. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on platform guidance rather than icon retrieval, but could be more specific about the output format or content scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for platform selection, or how it relates to sibling tools like list_icons or search_icons. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, users must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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