Get Documentation Updates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the response is metadata links rather than content, and it enumerates what categories appear in the output. It stops short of describing pagination or result ordering, but the added context is solid.

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?

The core action is front-loaded and each claim earns its place, including the scope enumeration and the sibling routing. It is dense but not padded; the only minor cost is that the scope list and routing are packed tightly together.

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, the description correctly compensates by stating that it returns links rather than changes and by enumerating the link scopes. Combined with full schema parameter coverage and the readOnlyHint annotation, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only pagination/ordering behavior is left implicit.

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%, so all six parameters (year, limit, category, technology, includeBeta, searchQuery) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of scope categories maps onto the existing category enum and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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: it returns links from Apple's Updates page with one-line summaries, and enumerates the covered scopes (OS/Xcode/Safari release notes, framework updates pages, WWDC What's new pages). It explicitly contrasts itself with siblings by warning that it returns links, not changes, and points to get_apple_doc_content and the WWDC tools for other needs.

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?

Provides explicit routing: use this tool for the links, read a single item with get_apple_doc_content, and use the WWDC tools for sessions. This is when-to-use plus named alternatives with the condition that selects each, leaving nothing to inference.

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