discover_technologies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Explore and filter' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond schema hints, or what the output format looks like. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Explore and filter available Apple technologies/frameworks') and adds context ('before choosing one') without any wasted words. Every part earns its place.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a tool with three parameters for filtering and pagination, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'technologies/frameworks' entails, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a discovery tool with filtering capabilities, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (page, pageSize, query) with their types and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying filtering via 'query', which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Explore and filter') and resource ('available Apple technologies/frameworks'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning 'before choosing one' (implying choose_technology is for selection). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other siblings like search_symbols or get_documentation, which might also involve exploration.

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 implies usage context ('before choosing one') by referencing choose_technology, suggesting this tool is for preliminary exploration. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like search_symbols or get_documentation, and doesn't specify any exclusions or prerequisites.

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