list_technologies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds behavioral context like browsing by category, discovering frameworks, and checking beta status, which are helpful but not extensive. It doesn't contradict 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?

The description is only 4 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and efficiently covers value and usage cases. Every sentence adds information 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?

The tool is simple with no output schema. The description explains purpose and usage well but could briefly mention the response format (e.g., list of technology names/identifiers). Still, it is largely complete for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mentioning case-sensitivity for category, providing popular examples, and linking parameter use to real tasks (e.g., checking beta status). This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 browses Apple technologies by category, using specific verbs like 'browse' and 'discover'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the use case of finding framework identifiers for search_framework_symbols, providing a clear resource and differentiator.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool: exploring available frameworks, finding identifiers, and checking beta status. It references search_framework_symbols as a sibling, providing an alternative. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance beyond that.

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