Apple Suggest Files

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that suggestions come from 'current Apple data surfaces' and that the tool serves as a fallback, which is light but non-contradictory context. No deeper behavioral details such as rate limits or result-scoping behavior are disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the fallback context. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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, has an output schema, and benefits from read-only/idempotent annotations, so it does not need extensive documentation. However, 'current Apple data surfaces' is vague and the description does not clarify what kinds of files are suggested, how query affects results, or how the fallback behavior differs from normal MCP completion. The basics are present, but the agent is left inferring some invocation semantics.

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 burden of explaining limit and query. It does not mention either parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names and defaults. This is a notable gap for a low-coverage schema.

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 ('suggest') and resource ('files') and adds the source ('current Apple data surfaces'), which makes the tool's core purpose identifiable. It also notes this is a completion fallback, clarifying how the tool is meant to be used. It does not explicitly contrast with other apple_suggest_* siblings, but 'files' provides enough 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?

The description gives clear context: this is a completion fallback for clients without MCP completion support, so an agent knows when this tool is appropriate. It does not mention explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the stated fallback role is genuinely useful guidance.

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