Apple MCP Tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it lists operations, it doesn't describe what 'retrieve' means (is it fetch by ID? get latest?), doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when creating duplicate folders. The description is functional but lacks important behavioral context for a multi-operation 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?

The description is appropriately concise - a single sentence listing the key operations. It's front-loaded with the most important information (search, retrieve, create, list). While efficient, it could be slightly more structured by separating operations or adding brief context about the Apple Notes integration.

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 multi-operation tool (5 operations) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'retrieve' means, doesn't describe return formats for any operation, and provides no context about error handling or Apple Notes-specific constraints. The complexity of the tool (multiple operations with different parameter requirements) demands more comprehensive description than provided.

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 already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly with clear descriptions of each field's purpose and requirements. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs (search, retrieve, create, list) and resources (notes, folders in Apple Notes app). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like calendar or contacts by specifying the Apple Notes domain, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other note-taking tools that might exist in the ecosystem.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'search' versus 'list', when to create notes versus folders, or how this tool relates to sibling tools like reminders or messages for similar functionality. No explicit when/when-not statements or alternative recommendations are present.

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