apple_brightness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Control' and lists actions. It does not disclose whether actions are instantaneous, require permissions, or if the confirm parameter relates to protected/destructive actions. The schema's confirm description hints at such behavior, but the tool description itself omits this.

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 very concise with no filler words, and the action list is front-loaded. However, it is so short that it omits important context, which limits its value. Still, for conciseness alone, it is well-structured.

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 there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context. The presence of a confirm parameter suggests some actions may be protected or destructive, but the description does not explain when confirmation is needed or what the fallback 'preview' behavior entails. The tool is simple, but the description lacks sufficient completeness.

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 already provides 100% coverage of parameters, including enum descriptions for 'up' and 'down'. The description adds no new semantic information; it merely repeats the enum values. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 controls macOS display brightness, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like apple_volume or apple_keyboard by focusing on brightness, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of contexts where brightness control is needed or when other tools might be more appropriate. The description merely lists actions without usage scenarios.

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