Search-Apple-Docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits like checking 'minimum deployment targets, deprecations, and platform-specific features,' which adds context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool with no output schema.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value, such as emphasizing criticality for cross-platform development and listing specific use cases, without redundancy.

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 of checking API compatibility and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on parameters, return values, and behavioral constraints, making it insufficient for full agent guidance.

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 undocumented parameters. It mentions 'API availability' and 'platform alternatives,' which loosely relate to apiUrl and compareMode, but provides no specifics on parameter meanings, formats, or usage. With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate.

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 specific verbs ('check', 'shows') and resources ('API availability across Apple platforms and OS versions'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_apple_doc_content or search_framework_symbols by focusing on compatibility analysis rather than documentation retrieval or search.

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 explicitly lists when to use the tool: 'planning app requirements, checking API availability, finding platform alternatives.' This provides clear context for usage without exclusions, helping the agent differentiate from siblings like get_sample_code or get_wwdc_video.

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