Apple Recheck Permissions

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses a useful non-obvious behavior: it notifies the client that Apple resources changed. It does not mention authorization needs or transformation of resources, but for a zero-parameter recheck tool this is adequate. The notification wording is not a clear contradiction of readOnlyHint because the tool still appears not to mutate Apple state.

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 no filler: it states the action, the trigger, and the notable side effect in under 20 words.

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-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers when to invoke it and what to expect behaviorally. It could be slightly more explicit about what 'Apple domain health' includes, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 already shows an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to add. The 0-parameter baseline applies.

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 specifies a clear action ('Recheck Apple domain health') and a trigger ('after the user changes macOS permissions'), so an agent can identify what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling health-check tools, but the post-permission-change context makes it distinct.

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 'after the user changes macOS permissions' gives an explicit when-to-use context. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives like apple_health or apple_get_preferences, so it stops short of a full 5.

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