System Health

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the agent knows the call is safe and repeatable. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it doesn't explain what health data is returned, what checks are performed, whether permissions are needed, or what side effects (if any) occur. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description contributes no disclosure of its own.

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 not meaningfully concise: its only sentence repeats the tool name and generic MCP exposure, which applies to every tool in the server. The space is wasted on provenance instead of being used to state the tool's purpose.

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, annotations for safety, and an output schema, the description still fails to answer the central question: what does system_health do and when should an agent call it? Without that, the agent cannot reliably select this tool over system_status or other health/status siblings.

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 input schema is an empty object with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 only restates the tool's name and provenance: "Delegated Apple domain tool 'system_health' exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP." It never says what the tool actually does, what 'system health' means, or what kind of result it produces. This is essentially a tautology of the title/name with no functional verb or resource behavior.

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 use this tool versus relevant siblings such as system_status, system_get_context_snapshot, apple_get_system_context, or the various *_health tools. The description provides no trigger condition, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives.

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