apple_tutorial_getFetch a tutorial from the local index by ID, returning its chapter list and estimated completion time in markdown or JSON. Use it after ingesting tutorials to preview structure and duration.
Return a tutorial from local index (ingest first) including chapter list and estimated time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| format | No | Response format | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds two things annotations cannot: the data comes from a local index and requires prior ingestion, and the payload includes chapter list plus estimated time.
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 no filler; the prerequisite is placed early. The parenthetical is slightly compressed/ambiguous but nothing 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?
With no output schema, the description usefully names what is returned (chapter list, estimated time) and the ingest prerequisite. However it never explains the required id (format, source) nor the default/format behavior, so an agent still lacks enough to call it confidently from scratch.
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 50% — 'format' is documented ('Response format') but 'id' has no description at all. The description mentions neither parameter, so it does not compensate for the undocumented required 'id' (no hint about its shape or where to obtain one).
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 ('Return a tutorial') and adds scope detail (chapter list, estimated time). It implicitly separates itself from apple_swift_book_get via the word 'tutorial', but never explicitly distinguishes from siblings or states what a tutorial is versus a book.
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 parenthetical '(ingest first)' implies a prerequisite sequence, which is real usage guidance, but it names no ingest tool and gives no when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.