apple_volume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists action names without explaining side effects or safety. The schema's confirm parameter reveals that some actions may be protected/destructive, but the description itself does not mention this or any other 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 single, front-loaded sentence that is efficiently concise. It earns its place by naming the tool's purpose and actions, though it could be more structured with line breaks. No fluff.

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 rich schema (100% coverage, enum descriptions) and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain return values or the confirm behavior, but the schema fills those gaps. For a simple tool, this is just barely acceptable.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema's detailed action descriptions and level/confirm ranges; it merely repeats the action names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Control') and resource ('macOS system volume'), and enumerates the exact actions (get, set, up, down, mute, unmute, info). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like apple_brightness or apple_system, which target different domains.

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 macOS volume, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given; the use case is only inferred from the tool name and listed actions.

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