safari_doctor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool checks and that it returns a pass/fail checklist with fixes. It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, but 'diagnose' implies no modifications. More could be said about potential side effects (e.g., does it modify permissions?).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise and every sentence adds value. Minor improvement could be made by breaking the first long sentence into two for readability.

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 there are no parameters or output schema, the description explains the output (pass/fail checklist with fixes) and the scope of diagnosis. It is adequate for understanding what the tool does and what to expect.

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?

There are no parameters (0 parameters, schema coverage 100%). According to the rules, baseline is 4 when no parameters. The description adds no param info because none is needed.

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 uses specific verbs ('Diagnose') and resources ('macOS permission + daemon chain', 'Safari running', 'Apple Events/Automation', etc.), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like native_click or screenshot by focusing on diagnosing permission issues rather than performing actions.

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 explicitly states 'Run this FIRST when clicks/screenshots/startup "don't work even with permissions granted"', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use, but the context is strong enough to imply it's a diagnostic first step.

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