list_running_mac_apps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the return format: a formatted list with name, bundle ID, and status flags (frontmost/visible/hidden). This goes beyond annotations and provides useful behavioral context without contradiction.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose and return format. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the core functionality. No unnecessary 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?

Given zero parameters and the presence of an output schema (not shown but mentioned), the description fully explains what the tool does and what it returns. The context signals indicate no nested objects, and the description's return format details are adequate for an agent to understand the output.

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 (schema coverage 100%). The description correctly does not attempt to describe parameters, and the return format explanation is sufficient. No additional parameter semantics 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 clearly states the tool lists all currently running macOS applications. The verb 'list' and resource 'running macOS applications' are specific. Among siblings, this tool is distinct from others like 'list_booted_simulators' and 'list_mac_app_windows'.

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 implicitly indicates usage when an agent needs to know which macOS apps are running. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, the context of sibling tools (e.g., Xcode-specific operations) helps differentiate. Additional guidance would improve clarity but is not strictly necessary.

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