Apple Inventory

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming the tool is safe and read-only. The description adds the qualifier 'discoverable' and references 'supported scopes', but does not elaborate on behavioral traits such as what scopes are supported, pagination, or performance characteristics. Given the annotations carry most of the safety burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise with no unnecessary words. However, given the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter), it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter and an output schema, which reduces the need for extensive description. However, the description does not explain the return format, what 'discoverable' means, or which scopes are supported. This is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 input schema has one optional parameter 'scope' with schema coverage 0%. The description mentions 'across supported scopes' but does not explain what the parameter does, what values are valid, or how it affects the output. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaningful semantics.

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 states the tool lists discoverable Apple containers across supported scopes, clearly identifying the verb ('List') and resource ('Apple containers'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like apple_preferences_* which focus on preferences, not inventory. However, the term 'Apple containers' is vague and may be ambiguous to agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or comparison with sibling tools such as apple_resolve_target or other listing tools. The agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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