find_related_wwdc_videos

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool finds (prerequisite sessions, follow-up content, similar talks) but doesn't describe response format, error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only/destructive. For a 6-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise: two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose with specific details, and the second provides valuable context about use cases. Every element earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. While it states the tool's purpose concisely, it doesn't provide enough information about parameters, return values, or behavioral characteristics for effective tool use. The context signals indicate significant complexity that the description doesn't adequately address.

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%, so the description must compensate for all 6 parameters. It mentions 'specific video' (hinting at videoId/year) and types of relationships (hinting at include* parameters), but doesn't explain parameter meanings, the limit parameter, or required versus optional parameters. The description adds some semantic context but doesn't adequately compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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: 'Discover WWDC sessions related to a specific video' with specific types of relationships (prerequisite, follow-up, thematic). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_wwdc_video' (single video) and 'list_wwdc_videos' (unfiltered list), though not all siblings are explicitly contrasted. The verb 'discover' and resource 'WWDC sessions' are specific, but sibling differentiation could be more explicit.

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 implies usage context ('Essential for creating learning paths') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_wwdc_content' or 'browse_wwdc_topics'. It suggests the tool is for relationship discovery rather than general search, but lacks clear when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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