apple_podcasts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists actions but doesn't describe side effects, permissions, or that some actions are protected. The confirm parameter is only explained in the schema, not the description, leaving the agent without better context on consequences.

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, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It states the tool's domain and lists actions immediately, making it easy to scan. Every element serves a purpose.

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 moderate complexity (multiple actions, a confirm parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. The rich schema compensates for many details, yet the description alone doesn't explain return values or the overall workflow. It's on par with a minimum viable description.

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 well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond enumerating action names, which are already in the enum. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the resource (Apple Podcasts) and lists the available actions (now_playing, play, pause, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like apple_music or apple_spotify. However, the verb 'Control' is generic and doesn't specify the exact purpose beyond 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only implies it's for the Podcasts app, but doesn't mention exclusions (e.g., not for music) or provide context about which action fits which scenario.

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