computer.system.status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful caveat that sensitive fields (username, serial, address, file info) are not returned, providing some transparency about data scope. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, require permissions, or mention potential errors or rate limits. The 'query' verb implies read-only but doesn't make it explicit.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('query') and the resource ('approval status fields'). It includes a valuable negative constraint without wasted words. Every part earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description covers the core purpose and data boundaries. However, it omits any explanation of the 'fields' parameter, which is essential for effective use. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed, but the parameter semantics gap makes the description incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it completely ignores the 'fields' parameter. The tool name hints that fields relate to which status fields to query, but the description offers no explanation of parameter format, allowed values, or behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with only one parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to query approval status fields of the current Mac. It also specifies what it does not return (username, serial number, address, file info), which distinguishes it from broader system info tools. This is a specific verb+resource+scope statement, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for checking approval statuses, but there are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools. The 'does not return' clause hints at appropriate use cases but lacks direct 'use this when' instruction.

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