detect_platform

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists the types of information detected, which gives some transparency about what the tool inspects, but it does not disclose the output format, whether it performs any system scans, or any potential side effects. The absence of an output schema makes this gap more significant.

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 that is front-loaded with the verb and enumerates a comprehensive list of detected attributes. It is concise but packed with useful detail, earning a high score for efficiency.

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?

Although the description enumerates the detected aspects, it does not describe the structure or type of the returned data, which is critical since there is no output schema. An agent would benefit from knowing whether the tool returns a JSON object, a string, or individual values. This lack of output specification leaves the tool incomplete for reliable usage.

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 are no parameters, so the schema trivially covers everything. The description adds nothing beyond the schema because there is nothing to add. Baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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's function with a specific verb ('Detect') and enumerates the exact aspects of the host environment it covers (OS, architecture, shell, homedir, path separators, permission commands, and OS-specific vulnerability nuances). This makes the scope unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on code analysis, fixing, and reporting.

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 the tool is for gathering platform information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it relative to other tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent would need to infer that this is a preliminary detection step, but no explicit guidance is given.

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