apple_maps

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 behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Open Apple Maps' and lists actions, but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or that some actions may be protected/destructive (which the schema's 'confirm' parameter hints at). The description lacks transparency about execution behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The second sentence 'Actions: open, directions' is somewhat redundant given the schema's enum, but it does not add significant clutter. It is appropriately sized, though slightly lacking in explanatory value.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It fails to explain how the actions relate to parameters, the behavior of the 'confirm' flag, or what happens when executed (e.g., opening an external app). The schema provides parameter details but not the overall operational context.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only loosely referencing 'search query' and 'directions', which are already captured in the parameter descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens Apple Maps with a search query or directions, and lists the two actions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its unique resource (Apple Maps), though the actions 'open' and 'directions' overlap somewhat in their schema descriptions.

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 use for Apple Maps actions but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are present, leaving usage context implicit based on the tool name and sibling set.

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