Review App Intents integration

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description warns that findings are 'heuristic advisories, not blanket deprecations or proof of invalid code,' which prevents an agent from treating the output as definitive. It also notes that Apple Intelligence review only happens when explicitly requested, matching the appleIntelligence flag in the schema.

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?

Two sentences deliver the full scope, conditional behaviors, caveats, and use context with no filler. The caveat about advisory findings is front-loaded and prevents misinterpretation.

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?

With annotations confirming read-only behavior)Skip and an output schema covering return structure, the description provides everything an agent needs: target domain, optional scopes, when to use it, and how to interpret findings. Nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds useful domain framing but no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the schema carries the semantic load.

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 names a specific resource (SiriKit/INIntent to App Intents migration opportunities) and the extended optional scopes (Apple Intelligence entity schemas, onscreen entity associations). It clearly separates this from sibling Swift/architecture review tools and reinforces the domain with 'Use when integrating Siri, Shortcuts or Apple Intelligence.'

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?

It gives clear when-to-use guidance ('Use when integrating Siri, Shortcuts or Apple Intelligence') and conditional triggers for the optional scopes ('when explicitly requested'). It does not name sibling alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, so it lacks the full when/when-not routing of a top-tier definition.

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