list_apple_design_resources

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful return-shape context (stable resource IDs, categories, platforms, formats, notes, preview and download URLs), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about pagination behavior or how the limit interacts with total results.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no preamble or filler. The field enumeration is somewhat long but earns its place given the absence of an output schema.

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 usefully compensates by naming the returned fields, and the filter set is fully documented in the schema. It falls short of complete only in omitting default/pagination behavior and any routing guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 filters (limit, format, category, platform, searchQuery) are already documented with examples in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Apple Design Resources catalog entries'), and enumerates the fields returned. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from siblings like search_apple_design_docs or get_apple_design_content, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description never explains how this catalog listing differs from search_apple_design_docs or get_apple_design_content, nor when an agent should prefer a filtered listing over a search.

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