mac_permissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that macOS does not expose TCC state to ordinary processes, that the tool probes via a known-safe operation, and that Screen Recording cannot be detected reliably without invoking a screenshot, reporting 'unknown' instead of guessing. This is excellent behavioral disclosure beyond basic purpose.

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 well-structured with an opening purpose line, a concise examples block, and a clearly separated limitations section. Every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage example, and critical behavioral caveats. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job of explaining the tool's behavior, including return state summaries, limitations, and probing method. It slightly lacks detail on the exact structure of the returned state (e.g., granted/denied values) and the specifics of the deep-link action, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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% with an enum and description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of the parameter values and their effects on the return state (e.g., 'check: all' returns all 3 permissions, 'check: accessibility' only returns that one). This clarifies the semantic output of each enum value beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check macOS Privacy permissions (Automation/Accessibility/Screen Recording) + deep-link to grant.' It also mentions a deep-link capability, which further distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools (mac_run, mac_screenshot, etc.) that do not handle permission checks.

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 clear context on what the tool does and includes concrete examples for the check parameter. The 'Limitations' section adds important guidance about when results may be unreliable (especially Screen Recording), but it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusive 'when to use' conditions. Overall, usage context is clear but exclusions are not fully spelled out.

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