mcp-server

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 that content is 'cleaned' and 'processed,' which adds some context about output transformation. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'complete' entails (e.g., pagination, truncation). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's function and source. There's no unnecessary information, and it efficiently communicates the core purpose without redundancy.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and source but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output specifics. With no output schema, the description should ideally explain return values more thoroughly, but it only vaguely mentions 'full processed content.' This leaves room for improvement in completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'url' well-documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by specifying the URL must point to 'Apple developer documentation or video,' but this is implied in the schema description. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Retrieve complete cleaned content for a specific Apple developer documentation or video by URL.' It specifies the verb (retrieve), resource (Apple developer documentation/video content), and scope (complete, cleaned). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search' tool, which likely searches rather than fetches specific content by URL.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions retrieving content by URL but doesn't clarify when to use 'fetch' versus the sibling 'search' tool, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'advanced RAG technology' and the types of content returned, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, pagination, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and scope. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with content details. No wasted words, though it could potentially be more structured with clearer separation of functionality and scope.

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 search tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return format looks like, how results are ranked, whether there are rate limits, or what authentication is required. The description covers what content is searched but leaves out crucial operational context needed for effective tool use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions searching Apple's developer documentation but doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage, constraints, or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 searches Apple's developer documentation and video content using RAG technology, specifying the scope (technical documentation, frameworks, APIs, design guidelines, educational resources). It distinguishes from the sibling 'fetch' by focusing on search functionality rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'fetch' in the description text itself.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'fetch' or any alternatives. It mentions the scope of content but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implied usage is for searching Apple developer resources, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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