System Get Dock Settings

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

The annotations already disclose that the tool is read-only and idempotent, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. Phrases like 'Delegated Apple domain tool' and 'exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP' are packaging metadata, not behavior. There is no contradiction with the annotations, but the description contributes nothing about what happens when called, what the output represents, or what side effects (if any) to expect.

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 short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise. The sentence spends its words restating the tool name and plumbing ('Delegated Apple domain tool', 'exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP') without earning its place by conveying what the tool does. A useful one-sentence definition could have been equally concise while providing purpose.

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 zero-parameter read-only getter with an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values or parameters. However, it still omits a direct statement of what 'Dock settings' means in this context and does not distinguish this from related getters. The tool is simple enough that an agent may infer intent from the name, but the description alone is not fully sufficient.

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 accepts zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics burden. Schema coverage is effectively 100% because there is nothing to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no missing parameter information needs to be compensated for.

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 only restates the tool name and its deployment context ('Delegated Apple domain tool ... exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP'), without stating what the tool does. It is a tautology: it says the tool exists and is named this way, but never explains that it retrieves Dock settings. The title and name imply the purpose, but the description itself provides no actual semantic content.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like system_get_settings_snapshot, system_get_appearance_settings, or system_get_finder_settings. The description does not mention any selection criteria, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without direction about the appropriate context for invoking this tool.

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