Get Platform Actions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that this tool 'shows you what actions are available for that platform's API,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, whether it requires authentication, or what the return format looks like. It adds some context about the platform name format but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response structure.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidelines and prerequisites, and the third adds context about parameter format and outcome. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter context well. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or error handling, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'platform' parameter. The description adds marginal value by reiterating the need for 'exact kebab-case platform name from the integrations list' and linking it to list_pica_integrations, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'all available actions for a specific platform', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is for discovering what actions are possible, unlike execute_pica_action (executes actions), get_pica_action_knowledge (gets knowledge about actions), and list_pica_integrations (lists integrations).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call this after list_pica_integrations to discover what actions are possible on a platform.' It also specifies an alternative (list_pica_integrations) and gives clear prerequisites, making it highly actionable for an agent.

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