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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool does (analyze relationships) but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 and structured with a 'Use when:' section, making it efficient. However, the sentence 'Essential for understanding how APIs work together' is somewhat redundant and could be omitted without loss of clarity, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 analyzing API relationships with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and return values, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results from this tool.

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 implies functionality related to inheritance, protocol conformances, and alternatives, which loosely maps to parameters like 'includeInherited' and 'includeConformance', but does not explicitly explain any parameters or their effects, leaving 4 parameters with unclear semantics.

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 analyzes API relationships and discovers related functionality, specifying inheritance, protocol conformances, and Apple's recommended alternatives. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'find_similar_apis' by focusing on hierarchical and protocol-based relationships rather than similarity, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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 usage contexts: 'learning API hierarchy, finding protocol requirements, discovering related functionality.' It gives clear guidance on when to use the tool but does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as when to prefer 'find_similar_apis' for non-hierarchical relationships.

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