fl_test_mac_restrictions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains what the tool does, that it returns a dict, the meaning of status strings ('OK' vs 'BLOCKED: <error>'), and provides expected outcomes. It does not explicitly state side-effect safety, but the audit-hook framing strongly implies operations are blocked rather than destructive.

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 a clear opening purpose, brief context, return-format clarification, and expected values. There is slight redundancy between the first sentence and the 'This tool reports...' sentence, but overall every section adds 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully compensates: it explains the return type, status string meanings, and expected macOS behavior. An agent knows exactly what the tool accomplishes and what to expect from the result.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed and focuses entirely on the output, which is appropriate for a no-argument diagnostic.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Test which operations are blocked by FL Studio's macOS audit hook.' It clearly distinguishes this diagnostic tool from the many transport/channel/pattern siblings, none of which probe audit-hook restrictions.

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?

It clearly implies when to use: when you need to know which operations are blocked/allowed in FL Studio's restricted macOS sub-interpreter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous and the expected results are spelled out.

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