wwdc_list_session_codeFetches every sample-code URL linked from a WWDC session page by session ID, including ZIPs, GitHub repos, and snippets.
Returns every sample-code URL Apple linked from the session page (zips, GitHub repos, snippets).
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the result is the complete set of linked resources and what forms they take (zips, repos, snippets), but says nothing about the response shape, empty results, or what the format parameter changes.
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 sentence with zero filler, front-loaded on the verb and the returned resource. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to carry its share of the documentation burden for a tool with an undocumented required parameter.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does cover the substance of the return value (URLs plus their kinds), which is the main thing needed. Gaps remain on the format parameter, the id contract, and behavior for sessions with no sample code, so it is adequate rather than complete.
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 in-schema with an enum and default, while 'id' has no description. The phrase 'from the session page' implicitly identifies id as a session identifier, which is mild added meaning, but no format, example, or lookup hint is supplied for the one required parameter.
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 (Returns) and resource (every sample-code URL Apple linked from the session page), and enumerates the resource kinds (zips, GitHub repos, snippets). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the close siblings wwdc_sample_code_list and wwdc_sample_code_grep, leaving the agent to infer the difference.
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?
No when-to-use framing, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternatives. With wwdc_sample_code_list and wwdc_sample_code_grep sitting in the same sibling set, the agent gets no guidance on which of the three to pick for a given intent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.