mac_doctor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Check' clearly signals a read-only diagnostic operation, and the list of checked components sets expectations. It does not mention potential side effects, network requirements, or output format, but for a no-parameter health-check tool this is adequate.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Check'), names the resource ('the remote Mac'), and then lists the specific components. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic with no output schema, the description adequately communicates scope. It omits what the result looks like and does not contrast with ios_doctor, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward health-check tool.

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, so the input schema completely covers parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add about parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') with a clear resource ('the remote Mac') and enumerates exactly what is covered (macOS, Xcode, Flutter, CocoaPods, simulator runtimes). This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like ios_doctor, which target the iOS project toolchain rather than the Mac environment.

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 intended use is implied: run this when you need to know the state of the remote Mac's development environment. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named even though ios_doctor is a close sibling that could be confused with it.

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