Container system status

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

The description covers the basic behavior (check and start), but does not disclose details such as whether starting is destructive, permissions needed, or the return value format. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but is adequate for a simple tool.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant words. The main action is front-loaded ('Check whether...'). Every sentence adds value.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., a status boolean or message), which is critical for an agent to use the output.

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 schema already fully describes the 'start' parameter as a boolean to start the service. The description adds little new information ('if it is stopped' vs 'if it is not running'). With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 identifies the resource ('Apple container system service') and specifies two actions: check status and optionally start. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which operate on individual containers.

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 implies use for checking or starting the system service, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or compare to alternatives. The usage is implied rather than stated.

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