reveal_mail_in_finder

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

Discloses fallback behavior and Mac-only limitation. Without annotations, description carries full burden; it sufficiently explains the tool's behavior, though it does not detail permissions or error handling.

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, front-loaded with action and purpose. No redundant or unnecessary words. Each sentence adds value.

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?

Given a single required parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's behavior, fallback, and limitation. It is complete for its complexity.

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 100%, and parameter description already says 'RFC message-id'. The tool description does not add new semantics beyond the schema; it only repeats the term 'RFC message-id'.

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?

Clearly states verb (reveal) and resource (.emlx file of indexed mail) and distinguishes from siblings like open_in_finder by specifying the file type and fallback. The description is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Only works on the same Mac as the app.' and 'falls back to opening it in Apple Mail.' Implicitly suggests when to use (when you want the .emlx file) vs alternatives, but no explicit when-not or sibling comparisons.

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