Find Apple Swift patterns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are synthesized as 'repeated' patterns across source kinds, but says nothing about result volume, ranking, or how the min_source_kinds threshold affects output. Modest added value, not rich.

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 tight sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries meaning.

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 7-parameter cross-corpus search tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is thinner than ideal. A caller can understand what the tool does but not enough about filtering, limits, or result shape to invoke it confidently.

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 only 43% across 7 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate and does not. It implies a query and a multi-source scope but never explains limit, platforms, frameworks, year_min, format, or how min_source_kinds controls pattern strength.

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 ('Find') and a well-defined resource ('repeated implementation/product patterns') and enumerates the corpora it spans (WWDC, Apple docs, tutorials, HIG, Swift Evolution). This cross-source aggregation distinguishes it from single-corpus siblings like wwdc_search or apple_doc_lookup, though those siblings are not 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?

'Use for API adoption, app architecture, and opportunity discovery' gives implied usage contexts. However, it offers no when-not guidance and does not route the agent away from overlapping tools such as apple_search_all or wwdc_find_api_introduction, leaving the selection decision partly to inference.

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