apple_photos_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so "Read-only" in the description is largely redundant. The description does add that the returned payload includes metadata, keywords and a bounded description, which hints at truncation, but it never explains how or why the description is bounded or what happens when the cap is hit.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the read-only nature and the unit of retrieval come first, followed by the returned data. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back. It falls short on the input side, where neither parameter's format or behavior is covered anywhere, which is the main gap an agent would hit in practice.

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%, so both parameters are undocumented in structured fields. "bounded description" loosely gestures at maxChars and its 20000 default cap, but mediaId's expected format/source and the truncation semantics of maxChars are never explained, leaving the agent to guess how to obtain and pass a valid identifier.

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?

"Get one Photos media item" gives a specific verb plus resource, and "one" plus the enumeration of returned data (metadata, keywords, description) distinguishes it from the bulk-retrieval siblings apple_photos_list and apple_photos_search. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing says to pick this over apple_photos_search or apple_photos_list, and no prerequisite (e.g. needing a mediaId from a prior list/search call) is mentioned. The only hint is the word "one", which implies lookup-by-ID but leaves the agent to infer it.

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