terminal_applescript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. While 'Execute AppleScript code' implies code execution, the description does not mention that this can run arbitrary code, cause side effects, or require macOS permissions; the examples ('controlling apps') hint at side effects but never warn about them.

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 the core verb-resource first and use cases second. Every word earns its place, with no redundant restatement of schema details.

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 tool with only two parameters and full schema coverage, the description is enough to invoke it correctly. However, since there is no output schema and this is a code-execution tool, the definition leaves out what the tool returns, how errors surface, and any permission/environment requirements, so it is not fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the script and timeout parameters. The description doesn't add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already says; it only provides use-case color, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the core action with a specific verb and resource: 'Execute AppleScript code.' It also names concrete use cases (controlling apps via AppleScript dictionaries, showing dialogs), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling terminal_execute tools that run shell commands.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('macOS-specific automation,' controlling apps, showing dialogs), but it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name terminal_execute as an alternative for shell commands. This is clear context without exclusions, so 4 rather than 5.

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