get_wwdc_code_examples

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds that each result includes the code and its session context, which is useful return-shape context. It does not mention pagination, result caps beyond the limit param, or auth, so it adds modest value over the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The 'Perfect for...' clause is mildly promotional but still earns its place by naming use cases. Overall efficient.

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 read-only browse tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what results contain (code + session context), and schema fully documents filtering. What's missing is disambiguation from sibling code-search tools, but nothing critical for correct invocation is absent.

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 all five parameters (year, limit, topic, language, framework) are already documented in the schema, including the exact topic-ID examples and language values. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Browse all code examples from WWDC sessions.' This is clear enough that an agent knows what it returns (code examples tied to WWDC). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like get_sample_code or get_apple_design_examples, which likely also return code.

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?

'Perfect for finding implementation patterns, seeing new API usage, or learning by example' implies when to use it, but gives no explicit when-not or alternative routing among the many sibling search/browse tools. The usage context is real but soft, so 3 is appropriate.

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