Find Related WWDC Videos

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries extra weight and delivers: it discloses the data source is bundled/local ('no network'), describes the deterministic relation ranking, and enumerates return fields (year, link, topics, transcript/code presence). It adds real context beyond the annotation, though it says nothing about result caps or error behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence that opens with the core purpose and then elaborates the ranking and return shape. It is dense with semicolons and a parenthetical, which slightly slows parsing, but almost every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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 lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it explains the data source, the relation sources/order, and the fields returned. The one meaningful gap is guidance on choosing it over sibling search/list tools, which leaves it just short of complete.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description goes further by tying the flags to the retrieval semantics: 'those Apple lists as related' maps to includeExplicitRelated, 'sharing its topics' to includeTopicRelated, and 'with includeYearRelated' to the same-year expansion, establishing the precedence order the schema does not express. The limit parameter is left unaddressed, keeping it from a 5.

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+resource ('Sessions related to one WWDC session') and clarifies the scope with 'from the bundled data (no network)'. A reader immediately understands this returns related sessions for a given session. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_wwdc_video or search_wwdc_content, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description implies the scenario (find sessions related to a given session) and explains the ordering/precedence of relations, but never states when to pick this tool over alternatives such as search_wwdc_content, browse_wwdc_topics or get_wwdc_video. Usage is implied rather than explicit, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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