list_frameworks

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It meaningfully discloses that the tool runs offline and needs no Xcode approval, which addresses common permission and environment concerns. It does not describe ordering or other return details, but the output schema exists to cover return structure.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the first states the core purpose and the second adds two key behavioral constraints. Everything present earns its place, and the description is immediately scannable.

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 list operation with an output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource, clarifies it covers every framework, and adds offline/no-approval context. An agent has everything it needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameter usage. With 100% schema coverage of an empty schema, the baseline of 4 is appropriate, and no further 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('every framework in Xcode's local documentation index'), making the tool's scope unmistakable. It clearly differentiates this from siblings like search_docs and doc_status by stating it enumerates all frameworks rather than searching or checking 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?

It gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when a complete framework list is needed, and it works offline without requiring Xcode approval. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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