Apple Get Preferences

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, which cover the safety profile. The description adds the useful context that the values are persisted defaults and routing preferences, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as error conditions or what 'routing preferences' concretely affects. This is sufficient for such a simple getter, but not especially rich.

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 sentence, front-loads the action verb, and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 no-argument, read-only, idempotent getter with an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. No additional behavior, prerequisites, or edge-case guidance is necessary.

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 100% schema coverage, so the input schema is already complete. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, no additional parameter explanation is required.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('persisted Apple-Tools assistant defaults and routing preferences'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is easily distinguished from sibling apple_update_preferences, which implies mutation.

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 makes clear that this tool is for reading saved preferences, so an agent can infer when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state conditions for when not to use it, but the read/update split is strongly implied by the sibling names.

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