iwork_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name by explaining what failure modes it can distinguish. However, it doesn't describe the actual mechanism or whether the tool itself may prompt for permissions, so a perfect score isn't warranted.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. Every clause adds useful information about what the tool reports and when to invoke it.

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 simplicity (0 params) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to know when to call it and what to expect. It fully covers the diagnostic role without needing extra details.

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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameters, and there is no missing parameter information to compensate for.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('which iWork apps respond') plus the version info. It clearly distinguishes this diagnostic tool from the sibling operation tools like pages_create or numbers_set.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this first when something fails' and explains the diagnostic value: separating a missing app, denied automation permission, and wrong script. This gives clear when-to-use guidance, even though it doesn't name alternative tools because none exist as diagnostic alternatives.

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