apple_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds the behavioral note that 'Preview has limited AppleScript support,' which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose specifics about destructive actions, response formats, or failure modes, leaving gaps about what happens when actions are executed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then a concise list of actions and a useful limitation note. Every sentence adds value, and 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?

While the schema provides good parameter descriptions and the action list is clear, the description does not explain return values or behavior after execution, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. The AppleScript limitation note is helpful, but for a tool with no output schema, more context on what to expect would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the action names but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's per-action descriptions. It does not explain path or confirm parameters, but the schema already covers these.

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 'Control Preview app' and enumerates the exact actions (open, list_open, close, close_all), making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling Apple app tools by explicitly naming Preview as the target resource.

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 for controlling the Preview app when the user needs those specific actions. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the naming and action list give clear context. The note about limited AppleScript support serves as a usage caveat, warning that actions may be constrained.

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