Get WWDC Code Examples

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description adds real value beyond it: 'no network' tells the agent results come from bundled local data, and it discloses the shape of each returned example. It does not mention result-count truncation or pagination, but the schema's limit parameter largely covers that.

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 leads with the resource and provenance before detailing filter behavior. Dense but every clause carries information; the only cost is that the filter explanation is a run-on chain rather than split into digestible points.

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 5 optional params, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description supplies what an agent needs: what a result contains and how each filter behaves. Only the interaction between limit/default truncation and filtering is left entirely to the schema.

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 baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds semantics the schema lacks: framework matching is substring-on-code ('SwiftUI matches any code that imports SwiftUI') rather than an exact framework name. This disambiguates a filter whose behavior is otherwise guessable.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Code examples from the bundled WWDC sessions') and enumerates the returned fields (title, session title, link, year, timestamp, code). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_sample_code because it specifies WWDC sessions and bundled/local data, though it never names an alternative 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: the filter semantics ('framework keeps the examples whose code mentions it', 'topic, language and year filter too') tell the agent how to narrow results but not when to pick this tool over search_wwdc_content, get_sample_code, or find_related_wwdc_videos. No when-not guidance or prerequisites are given.

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