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 'resolves all mentioned types, methods, and properties' but lacks details on how resolution works (e.g., depth, error handling, rate limits, or output format). For a tool with no annotations and 3 parameters, this is a significant gap in transparency about its operation and constraints.

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 guidelines. It's concise with three sentences that each add value, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from usage more clearly). No wasted words, but not perfectly optimized.

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, 0% schema coverage, 3 parameters, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the 'what' and 'when' but misses critical details like parameter meanings, behavioral traits (e.g., performance, errors), and expected outputs. For a tool of this complexity, it should provide more comprehensive guidance.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters or their semantics (e.g., what 'sourceUrl' should contain, what 'maxReferences' limits, or how 'filterByType' works). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters ambiguous.

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: 'Deep dive into all types and APIs referenced in a documentation page' with specific verbs ('resolves', 'understand dependencies'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_apple_doc_content' (which fetches content) or 'search_framework_symbols' (which searches). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_related_apis' or 'find_similar_apis', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 context: 'Use when: analyzing complex APIs, understanding type requirements, exploring API ecosystems.' This gives clear scenarios for when to invoke the tool. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when simpler lookups might suffice.

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