System Status

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

The description discloses no behavior at all. Annotations provide only openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint flags, and the description adds nothing beyond them, such as whether this is a read-only snapshot, what it includes, or whether it has side effects.

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 this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It spends words on framework exposure details instead of defining what 'system status' means or what the tool returns.

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 an output schema exists and there are no parameters, the description still fails to explain the tool's purpose or scope. An agent cannot tell what 'system status' represents, how it differs from 'system_health', or when it should be called.

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 the schema is trivially complete, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds nothing about parameters, but no parameter documentation is needed.

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 repeats the tool name and states it is 'exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP' without saying what the tool does. It provides no verb, no resource, and no operational meaning beyond the title 'System Status'.

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 system_status versus alternatives like system_health, system_get_context_snapshot, or apple_get_system_context. The description is only a packaging statement, so the agent gets no help choosing among sibling tools.

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