apple_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose safety and side effects. It does not mention that 'send' creates a real-world message, that protected actions require confirmation, or that some actions are read-only. This leaves the agent unaware of important behavioral traits.

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 concise single sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the resource name. However, it sacrifices useful context by being so brief, though for conciseness alone it earns a 4.

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 the tool's complexity (5 actions, 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), this description is insufficient. It lacks a high-level overview of behavior, return values, and safety-relevant notes (like confirmation). The schema helps but does not fully compensate.

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 covers all 7 parameters with detailed descriptions, including per-action explanations in the 'action' enum. The description adds no parameter semantics, but since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score 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 identifies the tool as controlling Apple Messages/iMessage and lists five actions (recent, send, unread, conversation, search), clearly distinguishing it from sibling apple_* tools. However, 'Control' is generic and the description relies on the schema for action definitions, so it is clear but not fully self-contained.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools like apple_facetime or apple_mail are not referenced, so an agent must infer usage from the tool's name and action list.

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