Apple List Recent Actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered by structured data rather than the description. The description adds useful context that Apple-Tools durably records assistant actions, but it does not disclose ordering, how 'recent' is defined, what the default limit does, or anything about pagination. It adds some value without contradicting the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: verb, resource, and purpose in one line. It does not restate the title or redundantly repeat information already present in the schema or annotations.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter, an output schema that covers return values, and annotations that cover safety, the description covers purpose and intended use well. Minor gaps remain: the meaning of limit, the recency window, and explicit guidance on when to use this versus apple_undo_action.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning, yet it never mentions the limit parameter. The name 'limit' is somewhat self-explanatory and the default of 10 appears in the schema, but the unusual integer-or-string union type and its accepted formats are entirely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') plus a precise resource ('recent assistant actions recorded by Apple-Tools'), and it names the intended purpose ('for audit and undo workflows'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling apple_undo_action, which executes an undo rather than enumerating the log, and from other listing tools by scoping to assistant actions.

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 'for audit and undo workflows' gives clear context for when the tool should be called — it is the read-side log that supports undoing prior actions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the alternative (apple_undo_action) that performs the actual undo endpoint.

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