Apple Detect Defaults

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

The description says 'persist them if missing', which implies a state-changing write operation, while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction about whether the tool has side effects, so an agent cannot reliably predict the tool's behavior. Annotation Contradiction flag set.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, no repetition of the title, and no unnecessary detail. Every phrase adds meaning: detection scope and conditional persistence.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the core action is stated. However, the description never defines what 'sensible default targets' are or the exact persistence semantics, and the contradiction between readOnlyHint and 'persist' leaves a critical behavioral ambiguity unresolved.

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 zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. Baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and the description avoids inventing parameter details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Detect') and names the resources (mail, calendar, reminders, notes targets), then adds the persistence behavior ('persist them if missing'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling detection tools like apple_detect_digest_folder, though it does not explicitly contrast with related preference tools.

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 phrase 'if missing' implies an initialization or setup use case: run this when default targets may be absent. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling alternatives are named to help the agent choose between this and tools like apple_get_preferences or apple_suggest_calendars.

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