get_related_apis

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

Description adds details beyond readOnlyHint annotation, such as showing inheritance and protocol conformances. No contradictions; all behavioral traits disclosed.

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?

Three efficient sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral context adequately. No 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 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. The phrase 'Essential for understanding how APIs work together' provides slight context but no extra semantics for parameters.

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?

Clearly states it analyzes API relationships, shows inheritance, protocol conformances, and Apple's recommended alternatives. Distinguishes from siblings like find_similar_apis by focusing on Apple's official recommended alternatives and hierarchy.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases: learning API hierarchy, finding protocol requirements, discovering related functionality. No exclusions, but the context is clear enough for the agent to decide when not to use.

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