Messages Health

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 no behavioral information at all: it does not say what is checked, what state is reported, whether any setup is required, or what the tool returns.

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 text is short, but it is short by omission, not by efficiency. Every sentence contains boilerplate about being 'delegated' and 'exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP' rather than useful tool information. This is under-specification.

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 empty input schema, read-only/idempotent annotations, and output schema reduce the burden on the description, but the core purpose is still missing. An agent cannot know what 'messages_health' actually checks or when to prefer it over reminders_health, shortcuts_health, mail_health, or the other domain health tools.

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 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. Per the zero-parameter baseline, a 4 is appropriate because no parameter semantics are needed.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title: it says 'messages_health' is an Apple domain tool but never states what it does. There is no verb or outcome, and it does not distinguish this from other domain *_health tools such as mail_health, calendar_health, or system_health.

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 about when to call this tool versus the many sibling health-check or messaging tools. The name implies a health/diagnostic role, but the description provides no conditions, alternatives, or exclusions.

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