get_apple_hig_rule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Melihat' (viewing) implies a non-destructive lookup, and the description usefully discloses what the content contains (technical explanation, mathematical formulas, bug prevention), but it never states the return format, depth, or whether results are cached/static.

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 the core action first and the topic list in a parenthetical. The enumeration is long but earns its place by mapping to the topic enum; there is no filler.

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 only two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers enough: it names the content type returned and the platform scope. It would be stronger if it described output shape or the effect of omitting the platform filter, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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% with both parameters enum-constrained and documented, so baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal value by listing the topic areas and hinting at cross-platform coverage ('lintas macOS, iPadOS, dan iOS'), but does not clarify the interaction between topic and the optional platform filter.

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: it retrieves technical explanations, formulas, and bug-prevention notes for Apple HIG design rules, with the covered topics enumerated (Liquid Glass, Zero-Shift Geometry, Safe Area Insets, etc.). This clearly separates it from the scaffold_* and audit_* siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs HIG rule details before scaffolding or auditing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives like compare_platform_pattern. Guidance is adequate but left to inference.

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