System Set Show Hidden Files

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

The description discloses no behavioral traits at all. It does not state that the tool modifies a system setting, what the enabled parameter does, whether the change is user-visible immediately, or any side effects. The annotations only provide weak signals (not idempotent, not destructive, closed world), and the description adds nothing 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 is boilerplate about being 'exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP' rather than useful content. It is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, and no sentence earns its place by informing tool selection or invocation.

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 only one parameter and an output schema, the description still leaves the agent unable to understand the tool's effect, the meaning of enabled, or how this system-set tool relates to sibling tools. An agent would have to rely entirely on the tool name and schema, which is insufficient for confident invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description makes no attempt to explain the enabled parameter. The schema only gives the parameter name and boolean type, so the agent cannot determine whether true means 'show hidden files' or 'hide hidden files' or what scope the setting applies to.

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 purely tautological: 'Delegated Apple domain tool system_set_show_hidden_files exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP' restates the tool name without adding a verb, resource, or effect. It does nothing to distinguish this tool from its siblings, such as system_set_show_all_extensions or system_set_finder_path_bar.

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, when not to use it, or what alternatives might be more appropriate. The sibling list contains related system-setting tools, but the description gives the agent no basis for choosing among them.

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