keychain_list_platforms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context that results are scoped to the current UNCLICK_API_KEY and include connection status, but it does not describe return shape, pagination, or status edge cases; with rich annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action and key qualifier immediately.

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 read-only catalog listing with one optional filter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the catalog, the resource type, and that connection status is included. It could do slightly more to clarify the relationship to sibling connection tools or the returned status values, but nothing critical is missing for invocation.

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?

There is only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents 'category'. The description does not mention category filtering or add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: listing platform connectors in the UnClick Keychain catalog. It also adds scope by saying the result includes connection status for the current API key, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings such as keychain_status or keychain_connect.

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 a discovery use case but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like keychain_status, keychain_connect, or keychain_secure_connect. No when-not conditions or routing guidance are provided.

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