macos_reveal_in_finder

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 mentions the action ('reveal', 'bring to front') but lacks details on behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., if the path doesn't exist), permissions required, or system effects (e.g., whether it modifies files). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Reveal a file or folder in Finder') and adds a secondary effect ('and bring Finder to front'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details like error handling or system interactions. For a tool with no annotations, more context would improve 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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'path' clearly documented as 'Path to reveal in Finder'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't specify path format, validation, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Reveal a file or folder in Finder and bring Finder to front') with the resource ('file or folder'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like macos_get_finder_selection (which retrieves selection) or macos_open_with_default (which opens with an application). It uses precise verbs ('reveal', 'bring to front') that convey the exact functionality.

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 revealing files/folders in Finder, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like macos_open_with_default (for opening files) or macos_quick_look (for previewing). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the context somewhat open-ended.

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