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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions capabilities like manipulating data and executing commands, but fails to disclose critical traits such as security implications, permission requirements, error handling, or potential side effects (e.g., data modification risks). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with broad system access.

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 sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and followed by a bulleted list of use cases. While the list is extensive, each item earns its place by illustrating the tool's scope, making it efficient for understanding capabilities without unnecessary verbosity.

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 (broad system access, 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and use cases well but lacks behavioral details (e.g., safety, errors) and output information. This is adequate for basic understanding but insufficient for fully informed usage without additional context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (code_snippet and timeout). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as syntax examples or best practices for AppleScript code. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 a specific verb ('Run AppleScript code') and resource ('Mac applications and system features'), and distinguishes it from potential siblings by listing comprehensive capabilities like interacting with Notes, Calendar, Contacts, Finder, Safari, and executing shell commands. It goes beyond a tautology by detailing what the tool can achieve.

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 implies usage through examples of common use cases (e.g., retrieve notes, access calendar events, execute shell commands), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. With no sibling tools, the guidance is adequate but lacks explicit context for decision-making.

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