applescript_execute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists capabilities but fails to disclose risks such as potential data loss, security implications, or the fact that AppleScript can make irreversible changes. The description is overly positive and lacks warnings.

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 front-loaded with purpose, but the list of use cases is exhaustive and somewhat redundant (e.g., similar patterns repeated). It could be trimmed without losing meaning. It is adequate but not optimally concise.

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?

The tool is complex (arbitrary AppleScript execution) and has no output schema. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., output or error messages), leaving a significant gap. It also lacks prerequisites or postconditions common for such a powerful tool.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters described in schema). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage. No parameter-specific details are added.

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 'Run AppleScript code to interact with Mac applications and system features,' providing a specific verb and resource. It then lists numerous concrete use cases, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose. Without sibling tools, differentiation is not required.

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 usage through its long list of common use cases, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool or when not to (e.g., alternatives like shell tools). There are no exclusion criteria or prerequisites mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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