get_wwdc_video

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful note that the result is a self-contained, offline-usable dump of session content, but it says nothing about payload size, rate limits, or whether missing years/IDs fail.

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, front-loaded with the what and followed by the when. Slight redundancy between 'complete WWDC session content' and 'entire session content', but nothing wasteful enough to hurt.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the right job of naming what comes back, and all four parameters are covered by the schema. Reasonably complete for a straightforward retrieval tool, though it could note failure modes for invalid year/videoId.

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 year, videoId, includeCode, and includeTranscript are all documented in the schema with examples and defaults. The description's mention of transcript/code mirrors those toggles without adding syntax or default behavior beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Access complete WWDC session content') and enumerates what is returned (full transcript, code examples, resources), which clearly separates it from the search/list siblings.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent in a workflow: 'Use after finding videos with list_wwdc_videos or search_wwdc_content.' It names the two feeder tools but gives no when-not condition or signal that the other WWDC tools are alternatives.

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