List Apple docs by framework

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond that - the matching mechanism ('modules JSON array and doc path prefix') - which explains why a framework name resolves to results, but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or return shape.

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?

Two compact sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the matching rule following immediately. No filler, though the second sentence leans toward implementation detail rather than agent-facing 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?

For a 5-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed and how the framework filter resolves, but omits result limits/pagination behavior and the effect of the 'format' enum. Annotations carry the safety side, but the listing/pagination behavior an agent needs is left to the schema defaults.

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 60%, and the description clarifies the semantically loaded parameter (framework) as a name matched against module arrays and doc path prefixes, which the schema only illustrates with examples. However, it adds nothing about 'type', 'limit', 'offset', or 'format', so the remaining gaps are only partially compensated.

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 ('Browse'/'List') and resource ('indexed Apple documentation symbols and articles') scoped to a framework or module, which matches the title. It does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings like apple_doc_lookup or apple_doc_get, so an agent must infer that this is the enumeration path versus the retrieval paths.

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?

'Browse all ... for a framework or module' implies the use case (enumerate a framework's symbols) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as apple_doc_lookup for targeted retrieval. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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