apple_books

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a useful behavioral caveat about limited AppleScript support and partial results, which is valuable, but it does not disclose authorization needs, side effects, or reversibility for actions. The disclosure is partial but real.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the topic and action list, and contains zero filler. The caveat about partial results is concise and earns its place.

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 a moderate complexity of five actions and three well-documented parameters, the description plus schema covers what each action does. However, it lacks output format details, usage guidance, and alternative differentiation, leaving gaps despite the helpful caveat.

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 description coverage is 100%, with per-action meanings for the enum and clear descriptions for query and confirm. The tool description itself adds no parameter details, but the schema already fully documents them, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 explicitly identifies the resource (Apple Books) and enumerates the supported actions (library, reading_now, collections, search, open), making the tool's purpose clear. While the verb 'Control' is generic, the action list provides specific scope and distinguishes it from sibling Apple tools.

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 alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Although the action list implies use cases, there is no explicit context about when to pick this over sibling tools or what conditions apply.

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