Browse Human Interface Guidelines entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral trait ('groups results by category'), but says nothing about pagination despite limit/offset params, nor return format. Adds some value but not rich context.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loading what the tool does before the alternative routing. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description supplies the key return-shape fact (grouped by category) plus filter routing. Minor gaps remain around pagination and the format parameter, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 schema already carries descriptions for keyword, section, and format. The description restates the category/keyword filters and adds example values, but leaves limit/offset/format unexplained, which is baseline-adequate rather than additive.

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 ('List'), resource ('HIG entries'), and scope (optional category/keyword filters, grouped by category). It also names the sibling it is not ('apple_hig_search'), so an agent can distinguish browse-vs-search without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes between this tool and the alternative: 'Use apple_hig_search for full-text FTS search; use this to browse by category.' It gives the selecting condition and concrete category examples ('Foundations', 'Components', 'Inputs').

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