apple_textedit_read_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description earns credit for adding real behavioral context: only word-processing body text is returned, and rich formatting and text boxes are excluded. That partial-return limitation is genuinely useful and is not derivable from the schema or annotations.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the core capability is front-loaded before the content-scope caveat. Minor deduction for the ambiguous 'Pages' wording, which could be misread as referring to the Pages application.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and explicitly what is not, which is the key gap an agent would otherwise hit. It does not explain how to detect more pages exist or how results are delimited, which is a minor omission.

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 coverage is only 33% – offset and maxChars have no schema descriptions. The description's 'character pagination' phrasing partially compensates by signaling character-based windowing, but it never explains offset units, maxChars limits, or default behavior, so the gap is only partly closed.

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 and resource (read TextEdit plain text) plus the pagination scope, so an agent can distinguish it from apple_pages_read_text and other read siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implied 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?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative-routing guidance. The 'Pages supports word-processing body text only' sentence reads more like a content-scope caveat than usage direction, and 'Pages' is ambiguous against the apple_pages_* siblings.

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