Find related WWDC sessions

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's added value is disclosing the ranking signals — topic overlap plus full-text similarity on the title. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though it says nothing about result ordering or whether the seed session is excluded.

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 sentences, no filler, and the mechanism/scope is front-loaded ahead of the use-case examples. Every clause carries information.

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, so the description carries the burden of describing what comes back — it explains how results are selected but not their shape (IDs, titles, snippets) or whether the input session appears in the results. Combined with the undocumented 'limit', the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps for a discovery tool.

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 67% and the description only restates the session_id input, adding no syntax or format guidance. The 'limit' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description (its bounds are merely implied by minimum/maximum), so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('returns related sessions') and pins the input ('Given a session ID'), which alone separates it from the query-string search siblings like wwdc_search. It also names the mechanism (topic overlap plus FTS similarity on the title), so an agent can tell what kind of relatedness it produces without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear positive contexts — companion sessions, follow-up content, same framework from a different angle — which maps directly onto the discovery use case. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming an alternative (e.g. use wwdc_search when you have no seed session ID), so it is context without routing.

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