Apple Suggest Running Apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool is a completion fallback and uses 'current Apple data surfaces', which provides some context, but it does not explain return behavior, sorting, or whether app names are localized or filtered.

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 only two sentences and wastes little space. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but the completion-fallback context in the second sentence adds meaningful value.

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, read-only, has no required parameters, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, the lack of parameter guidance and the absence of any contrast with system_list_running_apps leave room for an agent to misuse or under-use this tool.

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%, and the description gives no explanation of 'limit' or 'query'. The parameter names and defaults make the intent partially inferable, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving behavior around query matching and limit semantics unclear.

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 action (suggest) on a specific resource (running apps) and notes the data source, which is enough to understand the core function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling system_list_running_apps, and the phrase 'current Apple data surfaces' is vague.

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 one clear usage context: it is a completion fallback for clients without MCP completion support. It does not state when to prefer system_list_running_apps over this tool, nor when not to use it, so the guidance is useful but incomplete.

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