apple_data_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the output includes 'readiness, schema checks, and access requirements,' which informs the agent about the nature of the data returned.

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, clear sentence that is front-loaded with the action 'Return' and specifies the outputs concisely. No wasted words.

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 (though not shown), the description adequately describes the return content. It could be more specific about the format or scope, but for a simple health check tool, it is sufficient.

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 has no parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters. With zero parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as per guidelines.

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 returns 'redacted local readiness, schema checks, and access requirements,' specifying the verb 'return' and the resources. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'apple_data_doctor' by focusing on readiness checks rather than general diagnostics.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling 'apple_data_doctor' may serve a similar purpose, but the description does not differentiate usage contexts or provide when-not-to-use instructions.

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