List Technologies

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries most of the burden and does so: it discloses alphabetical-within-category ordering, that beta entries are suffixed "(Beta)", and the two-stage category matching rule (category name contains X, else tag contains X). Missing only return-size/pagination behavior beyond the limit param.

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 long, somewhat run-on sentences with nested parentheticals and repeated quotes; the key identifying facts are front-loaded, but the schema-duplicating category explanation and dangling clause "in any case" add clutter rather than 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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does: per-category alphabetical listing, frameworks with links, language tags, categories, and beta marking. It does not mention result-size behavior or the default 200-per-category cap, which the schema covers but a caller might still want surfaced.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters including the category matching rule and the beta filter. The description largely restates the category semantics ("in any case") and links the beta marking to includeBeta, adding only marginal meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource framing ("Apple's technology index: every framework and technology with its link, its languages ... and its categories"), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It also distinguishes itself from search_framework_symbols by explaining that the last link segment is the framework that sibling accepts.

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 category semantics and the hand-off note to search_framework_symbols imply when this tool is useful (browsing/discovering frameworks by category or tag). However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings like get_technology_overviews, search_docs_map or search_apple_docs, and no statement of when NOT to use it.

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