list_wwdc_videos

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 does add that transcripts and code are available for 'full offline access', which is useful behavior beyond the annotation. It says nothing about pagination or result ordering, so the added value is modest.

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 sentences with the core verb front-loaded, but 'Shows all available sessions with filtering options' largely restates the opening sentence, and the 'full offline access to transcripts and code' phrase is promotional padding rather than call-relevant guidance.

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 and full schema coverage on inputs, the description covers the essentials: discoverability purpose, filtering, and the ability to find videos with code examples. It stops short of stating return shape (title/duration/indicators, which live only in the limit param description) but is largely sufficient.

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%: year, limit, topic, and hasCode are each fully documented with examples and the topic ID enumeration. The description only refers to 'filtering options' generically and contributes no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: browse/list WWDC session videos with filtering. Distinguishes it from search-oriented siblings (search_wwdc_content, search_apple_docs) by framing it as a browse-all listing. However, it never names those siblings, leaving the browse-vs-search distinction implicit.

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?

Gives three implied use cases (discover content, find sessions by topic, identify videos with code), which is clear context for when to reach for it. But it names no alternatives and no exclusions, so the agent must infer why to use this over search_wwdc_content or get_wwdc_video.

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