get_platform_compatibility

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint: true, indicating a read operation. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the output (minimum deployment targets, deprecations, platform-specific features) and emphasizing its importance for cross-platform development, going beyond 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?

The description is three sentences: purpose, output, and usage. Every sentence adds value, is front-loaded, and contains no redundant information.

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 tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, output, and usage. It lacks details on return format but is sufficient for the agent to decide when to use 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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions (e.g., 'API URL to check compatibility', 'Check single API or entire framework'). The description does not repeat parameter details, but baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already provides sufficient semantics.

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 checks API availability across Apple platforms and OS versions, listing outputs like deployment targets and deprecations. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on platform compatibility, a unique function among the listed tools.

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 explicitly includes 'Use when:' with three specific scenarios: planning app requirements, checking API availability, finding platform alternatives. It does not state when not to use or list alternatives, but the provided use cases give clear guidance.

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