Apple Notes MCP

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context about what is checked (existence and update timestamp), which is not covered by annotations. No contradictions exist, and it provides meaningful operational insight beyond the structured hints.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Check if a local search index exists') and adds necessary detail ('and when it was updated'). Every word contributes value with zero waste.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, read-only, idempotent) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose and scope adequately without needing to explain behavior or outputs further.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter details, aligning with the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 specific action ('Check') and the resource ('local search index'), with precise scope ('exists and when it was updated'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'notes.index_build' (which creates/updates) and 'notes.index_search' (which queries).

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 usage context (verifying index state before search/update operations), but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives like 'notes.index_search' or 'notes.index_build'. It provides clear intent but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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