Platform Info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks compatibility and highlights the platform dependency (macOS-only). It does not detail the exact output format, but the behavior is adequately described for a simple boolean check.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second provides essential context. Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With no output schema, the description hints at the return type ('Report whether...' implying a boolean). It covers the key aspects: purpose and platform constraint. Could specify the exact return format, but for a simple tool with no parameters, this suffices.

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 input schema has no parameters (0), so the description's role is to clarify tool purpose. It adds meaningful context: reporting server compatibility and the macOS requirement. The description compensates for the lack of parameters by explaining the overall functionality.

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's purpose: to report whether the server can run, and explains the macOS-only constraint. It uses a specific verb 'Report' and resource 'whether this server can run'. No sibling tools exist, so no differentiation needed.

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 explicitly mentions that the server is macOS-only, which implies it should be used only on macOS systems. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is clear given the simplicity of the tool.

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