System Get Accessibility Settings

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which covers the safety profile, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not say what settings are included, whether the result is a snapshot, whether permissions are required, or any other runtime behavior. There is no contradiction between description and annotations.

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 short, but shortness is not conciseness when content is mostly redundant. The sentence only restates the tool name and the fact that it is exposed via a platform. It does not front-load any useful behavioral content, so it under-specifies rather than being efficiently informative.

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?

Although the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description fails to state what accessibility settings are retrieved or what the tool is for. With many sibling getter tools, an agent needs at least a one-line purpose statement to select correctly. The output schema may explain return values, but not the selection criteria for choosing this 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 and zero required parameters, so the schema leaves nothing for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description need not add parameter semantics, and it does not detract by failing to do so.

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 is essentially a tautology: it restates the tool name and says it is a 'Delegated Apple domain tool' without explaining what the tool actually does. The agent is left to infer purpose from the name 'system_get_accessibility_settings,' which is some signal, but the description itself provides no verb, resource, or result semantics. It also does not distinguish this from sibling getters like system_get_settings_snapshot or system_get_appearance_settings.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, no exclusions, no mention of related getters such as system_get_dock_settings or system_get_settings_snapshot. The agent receives no help in deciding whether this is the right tool for a given task.

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