Get WWDC session

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 usefully adds that the payload contains description, topics, transcript, sample-code URLs and related docs. It omits operationally relevant behavior such as the default transcript truncation (transcript_chars default 8000, max 25000) and the default markdown output format.

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 key lookup identity front-loaded, and no filler. The second sentence is a content inventory that pulls double duty for parameter semantics, so it earns its place, though it is slightly list-like.

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 must name what comes back — and it does. For a read-only retrieval tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly, with the remaining gaps being sibling routing and the truncation/format 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 only 38% and the description partially compensates: the returned-content list maps implicitly onto include_transcript, include_sample_code and include_related_docs, and the id format is restated. It says nothing about format, transcript_chars, include_chapters or include_judgment, so roughly half the parameters remain unexplained in both places.

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 — 'Full record for a WWDC session by id' — with a concrete id example (wwdc2024-10150), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like wwdc_session_summary or wwdc_session_transcript_full, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as wwdc_session_summary for a quick overview or wwdc_session_transcript_full for the complete transcript. The word 'Full' faintly implies 'use when you want everything', but that is inference rather than stated guidance.

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