Search-Apple-Docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns statistical data (counts and statistics) which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like data freshness, pagination, or error conditions that would be helpful for a read operation.

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?

Two efficient sentences that front-load the core purpose ('List all available WWDC years') followed by specific details about what information is included. Every word contributes value with zero redundancy or fluff.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of what the tool does and what information it returns. However, it doesn't specify the format of the statistics or whether the list is sorted/limited, leaving some implementation details ambiguous.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because while it correctly omits parameter discussion, it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required' which would be optimal clarity.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'all available WWDC years' with specific outputs 'video counts and statistics'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_wwdc_videos' by focusing on years rather than individual videos, and from 'browse_wwdc_topics' by focusing on temporal organization rather than thematic.

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 implies usage context: when you need to see which years have content and quantitative metrics about them. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though the distinction from 'list_wwdc_videos' is clear from the naming.

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