Apple Get Focus Status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile of a read-only status check, so the bar for the description is lower. The description adds only the 'unified Apple control plane' routing context and the odd 'truthful' claim, which is vague rather than a concrete disclosure. It does not contradict the annotations, since 'Return' is consistent with readOnly and idempotent.

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 short sentence that front-loads the verb 'Return' and contains no padding. The word 'truthful' is a confusing qualifier that could be dropped, but the overall size is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema present, the description plus annotations are largely sufficient: safety is carried by the annotations and return values are documented by the output schema. The remaining omissions — what 'Focus support metadata' actually contains and how this differs from system_get_focus_status — are purpose/usage gaps rather than missing behavioral context.

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 is empty, so the 0-param baseline of 4 applies and there is nothing the description must explain. Schema description coverage is effectively 100% because no parameters exist. The description appropriately adds no parameter-related noise.

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 ('Return') and names a resource ('Focus support metadata'), so it identifies an action and target. However, 'Focus support metadata' is vague — it is unclear whether this returns the current Focus mode, available modes, or whether Focus is supported at all — and the qualifier 'truthful' is confusing. It also does nothing to distinguish this tool from the nearly identical sibling system_get_focus_status.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains system_get_focus_status, which sounds like the same function, yet the description never explains when to prefer this unified-control-plane variant over the system_* one. There is no exclusion or conditional context anywhere in the text.

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