safari_doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It states what the tool checks, what it returns (pass/fail checklist with exact System Settings fixes), and how the extension-bridge diagnostic works down to worker lease ownership and probe responses.

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 dense and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by return information and usage triggers. It is somewhat long and runs several lists together, but every clause adds useful detail and nothing feels redundant enough to cut.

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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it explains what is examined, what the output looks like, and exactly when to invoke it. An agent has enough context to select and call this tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively 100% since there is nothing to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Diagnose the macOS permission + daemon chain' and then enumerates the exact checks (Safari running, Apple Events, helper daemon, Accessibility, Screen Recording, codesign identity). This clearly distinguishes it from the many action-oriented sibling tools like safari_click or safari_navigate.

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 explicit triggers: 'Run this FIRST when clicks/screenshots/startup don't work even with permissions granted' or when tools answer 'profile extension unavailable.' This is strong usage guidance, though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it beyond implying it is only for diagnostics.

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