Apple Triage Communications Task

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about cross-app aggregation and unread Message sources, but it doesn't clarify whether message/mail contents are only read locally or whether the summary triggers any side effects (e.g., clearing unread status). Given annotations, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions, the definition is incomplete for correct invocation. The agent cannot determine how mail_query and the limits interact, what the default '*' means, or how the summary is scoped. The output schema exists and covers return values, but the input semantics are missing.

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 must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention mail_limit, mail_query, or conversation_limit at all. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds zero meaning about how queries or limits behave, which is a significant gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and names a concrete resource ('cross-app communications triage summary') with explicit sources ('unread Messages and Mail search results'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools by stating exactly what it produces and from where.

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 implies the use case—summarizing communications from Messages and Mail—but does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives like mail_search_messages or messages_search_messages. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, only an implied context.

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