prepare_apple_design_brief

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 reveals that the tool is 'local-first' (suggests no network dependency) and does not mutate files or run Xcode, accurately conveying a read-only, non-destructive behavior. It could further disclose if it requires any local resources or has side effects on state.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence captures the core purpose, and the second provides usage context and important caveats. Very efficient.

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 no output schema, the description lists the contents of the brief (mission, skill triggers, availability policy, etc.), which compensates well. It also covers when to use and what it does not do. A minor gap: it does not explain how the parameters affect the output beyond schema defaults.

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 descriptions for all three parameters (detail, intent, platform). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, such as how 'intent' influences the brief or how 'detail' levels map to output structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it prepares a design and verification brief for Apple platforms, listing specific contents (mission, skill triggers, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like `prepare_design_agent_brief` by emphasizing 'Apple-platform' and 'local-first', and specifying target technologies (SwiftUI, SwiftData, etc.).

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 explicitly says 'Use before creating or changing SwiftUI, SwiftData, App Intents, Liquid Glass, or concurrency-sensitive UI.' It also clarifies what it does not do ('does not run Xcode or mutate files'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools.

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