Get Related APIs

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: the data source is the page's JSON alone (not a crawl or graph), and Topics groups are truncated to the first 3 APIs. These are real constraints an agent should know. It does not cover failure modes for invalid URLs or any rate limiting, so not a 5.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the resource and packed with specifics rather than filler. It is dense and slightly run-on, but every clause (source, categories, caps, return shape) contributes information.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so: it states each API comes with its link and Apple's one-line summary, plus the grouping and caps. Error handling and pagination are unaddressed, which keeps it from a 5 but it is otherwise sufficient for a read-only lookup 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 coverage is 100% and each boolean parameter already has a clear description, so the schema carries the load. The description reinforces what the inherit/conformance/See Also categories yield, but adds no syntax or defaults beyond what the schema states. 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?

The description names a specific resource (the APIs a documentation page relates to) and enumerates exactly what is returned: inheritance, conformances, the See Also group, and the first 3 APIs per Topics group. The phrase 'read from that page's JSON alone' implicitly separates it from similarity-based siblings like find_similar_apis, though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to discover related APIs for a given doc URL. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on when find_similar_apis or search_framework_symbols would be the better choice, and no prerequisites mentioned.

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