apple_finder

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

There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose side effects, destructive behavior, or the need for confirmation despite the schema mentioning 'protected/destructive action'. It also doesn't explain what happens to trash, disks, or files during actions like delete or eject.

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, well-organized sentence with a category prefix and action list. It is efficient but reads as a laundry list, with some redundancy against the schema enum.

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 20 actions and no output schema or annotations, the description omits return formats, side effects, prerequisites, and when to set confirm. It is insufficient for effectively invoking all tool actions safely.

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 already documents all 8 parameters with 100% coverage, including per-action descriptions in the enum. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond repeating the action list, 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 opens with 'Manage Finder' and enumerates 20 actions covering files, folders, trash, wallpaper, disks, and tags. This clearly identifies the Finder resource and distinguishes it from sibling Apple tools, though it is an umbrella statement rather than a single verb+object.

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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. It merely lists capabilities, leaving the agent to infer that any Finder operation belongs here, but there are no exclusions or compared alternatives.

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