Mac health overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still adds genuine context: it is local, requires no admin password, and returns per-part grades with fixed Swedish labels plus advice. It stops short of noting cost/latency of gathering all subsystems. Useful additions on top of annotations, but not rich.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a single dense enumeration of covered subsystems, a sentence on the grade model, and a sentence on when to use it. Every clause carries information an agent needs; there is no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does: per-part grades on a three-level scale with their literal labels and translations, plus accompanying advice. Combined with the enumerated subsystems, an agent knows what to expect from a no-argument, read-only call.

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 takes zero parameters, so the 4 baseline applies; there is no parameter meaning for the description to misrepresent or omit. Nothing in the description invents inputs or options that do not exist in the schema.

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 resource ('health check of this Mac') and then enumerates exactly which subsystems are covered — model, macOS version, uptime, CPU load, memory pressure with swap, startup-disk free space, battery charge/health/cycles, thermal throttling. That enumeration lets an agent distinguish it from the narrower sibling reports (battery_report, disk_report, memory_report) without opening their schemas.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions: 'when the user asks how their Mac is doing or why it is slow.' That is clear positive guidance. It does not state when to prefer this over a narrower sibling or over diagnose_slowness, which the 'why it is slow' phrasing arguably overlaps with — a real but modest gap rather than an absent one.

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