apple_apps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists action names. It does not mention that quit/force_quit are destructive and require confirmation, nor does it describe outcomes or permission requirements. The schema's confirm parameter hints at this, but the description text adds no transparency.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and then lists all actions. There is no wasted wording, and the action list is useful for a quick scan.

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 the tool's complexity (3 params, 7 actions) and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns, what inputs are needed for each action, or how the confirm parameter works, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, including detailed explanations for each action enum value, so the description adds no extra parameter semantics. It does not clarify relationships between parameters, such as name being required for most actions or confirm being needed for destructive ones, but the schema already covers the basics.

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 manages macOS applications and lists seven specific actions, giving a precise verb+resource scope. This differentiates it from sibling tools like apple_safari or apple_finder, which target individual applications.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling app-specific tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. It only lists actions without explaining use cases, leaving the agent to guess which tool is appropriate.

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