list_platforms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does add real context — results reflect 'effective availability' resolved through source projects or legacy adapters, which tells the agent output depends on configuration — but it says nothing about safety profile, ordering, or whether adapters must be enabled first.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. The trailing clause 'through recommended source projects or optional legacy adapters' is slightly jargon-dense but is the only place that nuance is conveyed, so it earns its place.

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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it supplies the one non-obvious semantic point (availability is mediated by source projects/adapters). It is nearly complete; a note on what 'supported' spans or a pointer away from list_sources would close the gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema declares an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly adds no redundant parameter chatter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List supported platforms') and adds a meaningful qualifier about how availability is resolved (recommended source projects vs. legacy adapters). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling list_sources, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' — there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus list_sources or the image-oriented siblings. The mention of 'recommended' vs 'optional legacy' adapters hints at relevance but does not define a selection condition.

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