mac_parse_fsck_apfs_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It indicates that the tool parses a log file and shows operations with timestamps, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, mention permission requirements, or describe any side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise—two sentences totaling 24 words. It is front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second adding specific output details. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 complexity (8 parameters, 1 required) and the absence of an output schema, the description should provide more information about return values, format, or limitations. It only vaguely states 'Shows APFS volume formatting operations with timestamps,' leaving the agent uninformed about the structure of the results, pagination, or error handling. This is insufficient for a forensic tool with many filtering options.

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 high (88%), so the baseline is 3. The description only mentions the log file ('fsck_apfs.log'), which maps to the required 'log_path' parameter, but provides no additional context for the other seven parameters (e.g., filtering, limits). It does not enhance the schema's meaning beyond what is already documented in the input schema.

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 that the tool parses fsck_apfs.log to find specific activities like volume creation, external device connections, and anti-forensics activity. It uses a specific verb ('parse') and a well-defined resource (the log file), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on forensic extraction rather than statistics or other log parsing.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mac_fsck_apfs_stats). It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate context from the tool name and siblings alone.

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