macos_quick_look

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what Quick Look actually does (transient preview vs permanent opening), whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the file can't be previewed, or if there are system limitations. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

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, clear sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what Quick Look is, what the user experience will be, whether the preview is interactive, what file types are supported, or what happens on completion. The agent lacks important context to use this tool effectively.

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 100% description coverage with a single parameter 'path' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as file format limitations or path requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.

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 action ('Open') and resource ('a file with Quick Look preview'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'macos_open_with_default' or 'macos_reveal_in_finder', but the Quick Look specificity provides some implicit distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'macos_open_with_default' or 'macos_reveal_in_finder'. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases for Quick Look previews versus full application opening.

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