list_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 'full offline access to transcripts and code' which adds useful context about data availability, but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like pagination (implied by 'limit' parameter but not explained), response format, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated).

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 with three sentences that each add value: first states core functionality, second mentions filtering, third provides usage examples. It's front-loaded with the main purpose. No wasted words, though the second sentence could be more tightly integrated with the first.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what the tool does and when to use it, but leaves significant gaps in parameter documentation and behavioral transparency. It covers the 'what' and 'why' reasonably well but lacks details on 'how' the parameters work and what to expect in return.

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 for 4 parameters, the description must compensate but provides minimal parameter guidance. It mentions 'filtering options' generally and 'find sessions by topic' and 'identify videos with code examples' which loosely map to 'topic' and 'hasCode' parameters, but doesn't explain 'year' or 'limit' parameters at all. The description adds some meaning but insufficiently compensates for the schema coverage gap.

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: 'Browse WWDC session videos with full offline access to transcripts and code.' It specifies the resource (WWDC session videos) and key features (offline transcripts/code access). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from siblings like 'get_wwdc_video' or 'search_wwdc_content' beyond mentioning filtering options.

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 implied usage guidance: 'Use this to discover WWDC content, find sessions by topic, or identify videos with code examples.' This suggests when to use it (discovery, topic-based finding, code example identification) but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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