app_visibility

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that hiding keeps the app running, quitting may prompt to save unsaved work, quitting a non-running app launches it to deliver the quit event, and that Accessibility permission is required for hide/unhide. This covers permission requirements, side effects, and action semantics—exceeding what annotations would typically provide.

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 three sentences, each adding distinct value: the core purpose, behavioral details of hide vs. quit, and a permission requirement. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids redundancy. No filler or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The description covers the essential behavioral aspects, including side effects and permissions, which is sufficient for a simple action tool without an output schema. It does not mention error handling or return values, but those are often implicit for void actions. The absence of annotations is compensated by the detailed behavioral notes. The only minor gap is what happens if the app is not found or the action fails, which is not critical for typical use.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context to the 'action' enum by explaining the behavioral differences between hide, unhide, and quit, which is beyond the schema's simple enumeration. For 'app', it does not add beyond 'Application name,' but that is adequately covered. The added action semantics justify a score above baseline.

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 with specific verbs: 'Hide, unhide or quit an application.' It distinguishes the three actions and explains their effects, making it unambiguous which operation is performed. The Cmd+H analogy further clarifies the hide behavior, and the resource (application) is explicit.

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 explains what each action does but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like open_app or manage_windows. The behavioral notes (e.g., quitting a non-running app launches it) imply edge-case usage, but there is no direct comparison or exclusion guidance. The context from sibling names gives some inference, but the description itself lacks explicit usage conditions.

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