keychain_list_platforms

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions connection status per API key, which hints at authentication, but does not explicitly declare the tool as read-only, safe, or disclose any potential side effects or rate limits. The description is adequate but not fully transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately identifies the action and scope. Every word is necessary and contributes to clarity, with no redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (list operation, one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior and result. It could be improved by noting the format of connection status, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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?

The input schema covers the only parameter (category) with a clear description. The tool's description adds value by mentioning 'with connection status for the current UNCLICK_API_KEY', which is not in the schema, providing context on what the list includes.

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 identifies the tool's action ('list'), the resource ('platform connectors'), and the scope ('all available' and with connection status for the current API key). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like keychain_connect or keychain_status.

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 states the tool lists platforms with connection status but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., before connecting, or for status checks). Usage context is implied but not directly addressed.

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