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 that the tool provides 'offline access to entire session content', which is useful behavioral context about availability. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a key behavioral trait. All three sentences earn their place by adding distinct value (content details, prerequisites, offline access), with zero waste or redundancy, making it efficiently structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, errors, or auth needs. For a tool with 4 parameters and 0% schema coverage, it should do more to explain parameters and expected outputs, leaving it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 'full transcript, code examples, and resources', which loosely maps to includeTranscript and includeCode parameters, but doesn't explain year or videoId or provide syntax/format details. With 4 parameters and low coverage, this adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 specific action ('Access complete WWDC session content') and resource ('WWDC session'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_wwdc_videos (which lists videos) or get_wwdc_code_examples (which focuses only on code). It specifies the content includes 'full transcript, code examples, and resources', making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use after finding videos with list_wwdc_videos or search_wwdc_content.' It provides clear prerequisites and context, guiding the agent to first identify videos using those siblings before accessing detailed content here, which is specific and actionable.

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