Files Health

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) cover the safety profile, so the description's burden is lower, but it still adds zero behavioral context. It does not disclose what conditions 'health' evaluates, whether permissions or iCloud state factor in, or what failure looks like. There is no contradiction with the annotations, but also no value added beyond them.

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 short, but its single sentence does not earn its place: it repeats the tool name and describes transport instead of function. This is under-specification masquerading as conciseness, not efficient writing.

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 trivial invocation surface (0 params) and presence of an output schema lower the completeness bar, but the essential semantic — what 'Files Health' actually reports and when an agent should call it — is entirely absent. An agent cannot make a confident call/no-call decision from this text alone.

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 trivially covers 100% of them, so baseline 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to add about argument semantics, and it correctly does not fabricate any.

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, "Delegated Apple domain tool 'files_health' exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP," restates the tool's name and title without ever stating what the tool does. It provides provenance (delegated, exposed via MCP) rather than a function, so an agent still cannot tell whether files_health checks disk space, iCloud sync health, or file-access integrity. This is essentially a tautology wrapped in transport details.

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 guidance whatsoever about when to use files_health versus the many relevant siblings: system_health, apple_health, files_get_icloud_status, or files_get_file_info. The description names no alternatives and gives no selection criteria, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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