Notes 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. However, the description adds no behavioral context: it does not say what kind of results are returned, whether it probes Apple Notes, or what state it examines.

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 this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It front-loads no actionable information and wastes the single sentence on restating the tool identity and MCP exposure rather than explaining behavior.

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?

Although the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description still fails to establish what the tool does. An agent cannot confidently select notes_health over other *_health tools or understand what a successful invocation means.

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 no parameter ambiguity. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4 because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 restates the tool name and title ('Delegated Apple domain tool 'notes_health' exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP') without stating what the tool does. There is no verb or function, only infrastructure context, so an agent cannot tell whether this performs a health check, returns diagnostics, or verifies connectivity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use notes_health versus any alternative. The sibling list shows a clear *_health pattern, but the description does not explain what a health tool is for or when it should be selected, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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