apple_iwork

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only lists action names without explaining effects, prerequisites, or consequences (e.g., whether actions are destructive, require confirmation, or return previews). The 'confirm' parameter description in the schema provides some clue, but the tool description itself is silent.

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 sentence plus a list of actions, front-loaded with the tool's scope. It is concise and every element (the scope and the action list) contributes directly to understanding the tool. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

This is a complex tool with 11 actions, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides only a list of actions. It does not explain how actions relate to parameters, what happens upon execution (e.g., for protected actions), or what return values to expect. The schema covers parameters, but the overall tool behavior remains under-specified.

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%, and each action in the enum already has a description. The tool description merely repeats the action names without adding extra meaning about how 'path' or 'confirm' should be used. It does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 states 'Control Pages, Numbers, and Keynote' and enumerates all 11 actions, making the tool's purpose clear. It is specific to iWork apps and distinguishes well from sibling Apple tools, though the verb 'Control' is somewhat generic without the action list.

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 implies usage via its scope ('Control Pages, Numbers, and Keynote') and the action list, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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