Grep WWDC sample-code URLs

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

Annotations already cover the full safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the burden is lower. The description adds only that refs are 'indexed' and accepts regex; it says nothing about result shape, pagination, or how limit/format behave.

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 compact sentence with the core filtering behavior front-loaded and an example appended. Efficient, though arguably tight enough that it sacrifices needed detail for a 4-parameter tool.

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 and only 50% parameter coverage, the description should carry more: the is_regex behavior, limit semantics, and return format are all unaddressed. Adequate for a grep-style tool but with clear gaps.

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 50%: pattern and format are documented in the schema, while limit and is_regex are not. The description's 'substring/regex' phrasing hints at the is_regex toggle but does not explain the default-off behavior or the limit cap, so it only partially compensates.

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 ('Filter') and resource ('indexed sample-code refs') with the matching mode ('substring/regex') plus concrete examples ('.zip', 'SwiftData'). It clearly differs from a plain list tool, though it never names a sibling to differentiate against.

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 example queries ('find sessions with .zip') imply when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs wwdc_sample_code_list or wwdc_list_session_code, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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