mac_use_status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Report' implies a read-only operation, which is useful, but the description does not disclose whether it performs active checks or merely returns cached status, nor does it specify any side effects or permissions required.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to specifying the tool's function.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the agent can expect in the response. It names the categories reported but does not indicate the format (e.g., booleans, versions, strings) or how readiness is represented, leaving some ambiguity for a simple status tool.

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 input schema already covers everything. The description needs no parameter detail, and the baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameter semantics to document.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and clearly names the resource scope ('platform, Accessibility / Screen Recording, and Mac Use readiness'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling action-oriented tools by announcing itself as a status/readiness check.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that this is a pre-flight check for the screen-control sibling tools, but the description never states that usage context or contrasts it with any other tool.

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