Apple Reveal In Finder

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

Annotations already cover non-destructiveness and open-world behavior, and the description does not contradict them. It adds only the mechanism 'through Apple Files' and the file-or-folder scope, but does not disclose side effects such as opening a Finder window, requiring an existing path, or authorization behavior. This is a modest addition over 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?

One short sentence with no filler and the action verb front-loaded. It clearly communicates the purpose without redundant wording.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema plus annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits any guidance on path requirements and the key sibling distinction from files_reveal_in_finder. The definition is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete for correct tool selection.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description is the only source of parameter meaning, but it only implies that 'path' identifies a file or folder. It does not specify whether the path must be absolute, whether it must already exist, or what path formats are accepted. The single parameter is therefore only minimally documented.

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 names a specific action ('Reveal'), a resource ('file or folder'), and a target context ('in Finder through Apple Files'), so an agent understands what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling files_reveal_in_finder, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no statement about when to use this tool rather than files_reveal_in_finder, apple_open_file_path, or files_open_path. The description gives no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent must infer appropriate use purely from the name.

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