apple_twitter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists action names, which imply state changes (post, like, retweet), but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as the need for Safari login with JavaScript enabled, the confirmation/preview flow for protected actions, or any side effects. The detailed action descriptions exist in the schema but not in the tool description, so transparency is limited.

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, consisting of one sentence plus a comma-separated list of actions. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. The list of actions is compact and relevant, though a bulleted or semicolon-separated structure could improve readability slightly. Overall, every word contributes useful information.

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 distinct actions and 6 parameters, but the description is a brief summary that relies heavily on the schema for action details. While the schema provides extensive information, the description lacks context about when to choose this tool over siblings, the overall workflow (e.g., that it orchestrates Safari), or any caveats. It is minimally viable for an agent that can read the schema, but not fully self-sufficient.

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 tool description itself does not mention any parameters, but the input schema has 100% coverage with meaningful descriptions for all six parameters (e.g., action, text, num, confirm, auto_send, tweet_url). According to the rubric, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, and the description adds no extra parameter semantics, so this score 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's purpose: 'Control X/Twitter via Safari' and lists the specific actions it supports. This gives a specific verb and resource, and the action list clarifies the scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'apple_safari', which may also control Safari actions, so it misses a point for full sibling distinction.

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 provides no direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool should be preferred. The action descriptions in the schema give some context, but the tool description itself does not offer usage recommendations or comparisons to siblings like apple_safari.

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