check_macos_permissions

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

Discloses key behavioral aspects: the response indicates whether Screen Recording works, which launcher process is evaluated, where permission must be granted, and that the MCP client must be fully restarted after changing the setting. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden and does it well.

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?

Description is concise at four sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence provides distinct value. Slight room for trimming but overall well-structured.

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 zero parameters, an output schema exists (so return values are documented), and no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral context, usage guidance, and outcomes. Nothing missing.

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?

No parameters exist in the input schema, and schema coverage is 100%. With no params to describe, the baseline of 4 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?

Clearly states the tool diagnoses macOS Screen Recording permission for Claude Code/Codex users, specifying the exact resource and action. Distinguishes from siblings by referencing other tools that need different permissions.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (before retrying start_recording or start_app_window_recording when TCC may be blocking), when not to use it (iOS Simulator, Android recordings), and that pointer tools need Accessibility instead.

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