Maps Health

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only/idempotent behavior is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context about what the health check reports, what domain state it inspects, or how the result is shaped.

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 definition is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The only sentence spends its length on the redundant framing 'exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP' and contains no functional content that earns its place.

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?

Even though the tool has no parameters, has an output schema, and is annotated as read-only/idempotent, the core semantics are missing: what 'health' means, what it checks, and how it differs from other health-check tools. An agent would have to guess from the tool name to decide whether and why to invoke it.

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 takes zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. For a no-parameter tool, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail.

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 merely restates the tool's name ('Delegated Apple domain tool 'maps_health'') and notes that it is exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP. It provides no verb or outcome indicating what the tool actually does, such as checking the health of the Maps domain. This is a tautology and does not distinguish it from the many sibling *_health tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus any alternative. The description does not say that it is a diagnostic health-check for the Maps domain, nor does it mention any circumstances in which an agent should or should not call it.

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