apple_get_asset_specs

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 discloses the categories of data returned and the key behavioral rule (prefer returned IDs over hard-coded sizes), which is valuable. It says nothing about auth needs, caching/freshness of 'current' specs, or whether the four inputs act as optional filters that narrow the result set.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then appends the usage note after a semicolon. No filler, though the semicolon-joined clause packs two distinct ideas (what it returns, how to use it) into one dense statement.

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 read-only reference-data tool with four optional filters and no output schema, the description conveys the general shape of the return (specs, placement types, device groups, limits) but not how the inputs narrow results or what a result entry looks like. Adequate to attempt a call, insufficient to call it precisely.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: 'placement types' and 'device groups' loosely hint at placementType and placementGroup. The params specId and feature get no explanation at all, and nothing states that all four are optional filters rather than required selectors.

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?

A specific verb ('Read') plus a precisely enumerated set of resources (asset specifications, placement types, device groups, limits). It is distinguishable from siblings like apple_get_asset or apple_list_asset_placements because it returns reference/spec data rather than concrete assets. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, keeping it just below a 5.

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 clause 'use the returned IDs instead of hard-coded device sizes' implies the intended workflow (fetch specs first, then pass IDs downstream), which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when to call this versus apple_get_asset_library or apple_list_asset_placements, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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