reveal_in_finder

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

Annotations already declare the operation is read-only, and the description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that this spawns a visible GUI action (a Finder window) rather than just returning data. It does not disclose platform requirements (macOS-only) or failure behavior for invalid paths, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the user-facing rationale. Nothing wasted and nothing buried.

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?

For a one-parameter, no-output, read-only tool with annotations present, the description covers what happens and why. Missing path-format expectations and platform constraints are the only real gaps.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single required `path` parameter, so the description must carry the load. 'This item' hints that path refers to a filesystem item, but it never specifies expected format (absolute vs relative) or whether the path must exist.

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?

States a specific verb and effect: 'Open a Finder window with this item selected', which is concrete enough for an agent to know exactly what happens. It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings, but no sibling in the list does anything similar, so ambiguity risk is low.

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?

'so the user can look at it' implies the usage context — revealing a file for human inspection — but never states when to prefer this over, say, list_items or simply returning a path. The usage signal is implied rather than explicit.

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