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 mentions 'browse' (implying read-only) and 'checking beta status,' which adds some behavioral context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this is adequate but has gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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, followed by usage guidelines in a structured list. Every sentence earns its place by adding specific value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-organized.

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, 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage, and some parameter hints. However, it lacks details on response format or error handling, which are important for a tool with this complexity, leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters, the description adds value by implying parameter usage: 'by category' hints at the 'category' parameter, 'checking beta status' relates to 'includeBeta,' and 'browse all' suggests 'limit' might control results. However, it doesn't fully document all parameters (e.g., 'language' is unmentioned), so it compensates partially but not completely.

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 ('browse all Apple technologies and frameworks by category') and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning its role in 'discovering available frameworks and understanding Apple's technology ecosystem.' It explicitly names a sibling tool ('search_framework_symbols') for differentiation.

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 guidelines with 'Use this when:' followed by three specific scenarios: exploring availability, finding framework identifiers for search_framework_symbols, and checking beta status. This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives, including a named sibling.

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