Search Docs Map

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

Beyond readOnlyHint, the description discloses that results come from a local prebuilt file (api-map/apple-docs-map.tsv, no network), that matching is title-only and literal, that results are sorted shortest-titles-first, and that technology may retain multiple frameworks. Those are genuine behavioral traits not covered by the annotation. It does not discuss result caps or pagination, but the schema's limit already handles 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?

Purpose is front-loaded and dense with useful detail, but the whole description is a single long run-on sentence with stacked parentheticals. The build-path implementation details (scripts/build-docs-map.ts) add little for an invoking agent, though the rest of the content earns its place.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields (title, kind, technology, link) and their ordering, and points to get_apple_doc_content for follow-up, which is enough for a read-only search tool. Missing only explicit guidance on the search_apple_docs alternative.

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 query, limit and technology are already documented in the schema, including the literal-match behavior and the shortest-titles-first limit semantics. The description adds only marginal nuance ("technology keeps one or more frameworks"), so it sits at the baseline for fully-described parameters.

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 (search the docs map) plus the exact matching rule (title contains query, any case, as typed, no pattern syntax) and the data source, so an agent can tell it mirrors over a local static map rather than the live API. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the closely-related sibling search_apple_docs, leaving the agent to infer which search to pick.

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?

It gives a follow-up instruction ("Read a page with get_apple_doc_content") and a constraint (no pattern syntax), which shapes how to use it. It offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to search_apple_docs, the sibling an agent would most likely confuse it with, so usage is only implied.

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