List WWDC years

Does 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 needs no restating. The description contributes one genuinely useful behavioral detail - that results reflect only what is in the local index - which warns the agent the list may be incomplete relative to all WWDC years. It says nothing about ordering, caching, or how the markdown vs json choice changes output.

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?

One sentence with no filler, and the essential scope qualifier ('in the local index') is placed before the payload detail. Nothing extraneous, though the sentence is arguably thinner than the tool's role warrants.

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 has to describe the return value, and it does: a set of years with per-year session counts. Combined with full schema coverage for the only parameter and annotations covering the safety profile, this is close to complete; only the shape/ordering of the returned set is left unspecified (notably whether counts are returned with the markdown format).

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?

There is a single optional 'format' parameter with 100% schema description coverage and an enum, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax, default, or format-selection guidance beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline of 3 when structured fields do the work.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Returns the set of WWDC years') and adds scope plus payload detail ('present in the local index with session counts'). That distinguishes it from adjacent discovery tools like wwdc_list_topics and wwdc_list_sessions, though it never names or contrasts those siblings 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent must infer on its own that this is the discovery call to run before filtering by year elsewhere; the phrase 'local index' hints at a scope caveat but does not tell the agent when to reach for this tool.

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