Get Apple Preferences

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds the behavioral detail of optional scope filtering. However, it does not explain what happens when scope is null or what types of preferences are returned, so transparency is adequate but not enhanced significantly beyond the annotation.

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 with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and the optional filtering. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 has one optional parameter, a readOnlyHint annotation, and an output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details about the scope parameter's format and behavior. The output schema presumably covers return values, so the description does not need to, but the missing parameter explanation reduces completeness.

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 scope parameter. The description says 'optionally filtered to a scope' but does not clarify what scope values are acceptable (e.g., strings representing keys or domains). This is insufficient for an agent to use the parameter correctly.

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 gets persisted preferences with optional scope filtering. It is distinct from sibling tools like apple_preferences_set_default or apple_preferences_add_alias. However, the term 'scope' is vague and not elaborated, slightly reducing clarity.

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 implies usage for retrieving preferences but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the other preference-related siblings. The optional scope filtering is mentioned but no context on when to apply it.

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