WWDC topics by year

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the dual-mode behavior (omit year for a cross-year table), which is genuinely useful beyond the annotations, but says nothing about result size, ranking method, or ordering.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability before the example use cases. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded, though the quoted example queries are somewhat redundant with the usage statement that precedes them.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey enough about returns, and it only gestures at this via 'cross-year comparison table'. An agent knows the modes but not the response shape (ranked list with counts?) or whether markdown/json formats are actually rendered tables. Adequate but with a visible gap for a no-output-schema 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 description coverage is 100% – year, limit, and format are all documented in the schema, including 'omit for a cross-year comparison table' and the default/max on limit. The description only restates the year omission behavior in prose, adding no new parameter semantics. 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 (Show) and resource (most popular WWDC session topics), plus the two modes: single-year rankings and a cross-year comparison table. It is distinguishable from the nearby wwdc_list_topics sibling via the popularity/trend angle, though it never names that sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Concrete example queries ('what was hot at WWDC 2024?', 'comparing topic frequency trends') make the intended use clear. It lacks any when-not guidance or an explicit pointer to alternative tools such as wwdc_list_topics or wwdc_search, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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