apple_finder_selection

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description still adds value by disclosing the return shape (names and URLs) and the 'does not read contents' limitation. It omits pagination/limit behavior, which is the only remaining gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the read-only nature and the return payload. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned and what is not read. The only incompleteness is the undocumented limit parameter and resulting pagination behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'limit' (default 100, max 500) is never mentioned in the description. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap, leaving bounds and paging semantics unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('get') and resource ('selected Finder items') with an explicit scope of what is returned ('names and URLs'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like apple_finder_reveal and apple_files_list, though it doesn't name an alternative to route against.

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?

'Does not read contents' implies a boundary and hints at when to use a different tool (e.g. apple_files_read_text), but no alternative is named and no explicit when-to-use condition is given. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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