browse_wwdc_topics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns topic IDs and is a 'first step,' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'List' but not explicit). For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and output details in two additional sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the complexity (4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It explains the purpose and usage well but omits critical details about parameters, behavioral traits, and return values beyond topic IDs. For a tool with undocumented inputs, this leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (topicId, includeVideos, year, limit) are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters or their purposes, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. This leaves the agent with no guidance on how to use the input fields effectively.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all WWDC topic categories with their IDs'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_wwdc_videos or list_technologies by focusing on topic metadata rather than videos or technologies. It explicitly mentions the output format ('topic IDs like "swiftui-ui-frameworks"'), which adds clarity.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Essential first step before using list_wwdc_videos with topic filtering') and how its output integrates with other tools ('that can be used in other tools'), clearly differentiating it from alternatives like list_wwdc_videos or search_wwdc_content. This helps the agent understand its role in a workflow.

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