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 describes the tool's function ('browse and search symbols') and scope ('within a specific Apple framework'), but lacks details on behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. However, it does add context about the prerequisite (list_technologies), which is valuable.

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 and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool's function and use cases, and the second provides critical workflow context.

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 the complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks parameter explanations and behavioral details. However, it does provide essential context (prerequisite with list_technologies), making it minimally 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 all 5 parameters. It only mentions 'framework' implicitly (via 'specific Apple framework') and does not explain the semantics of symbolType, namePattern, language, or limit. This leaves most parameters undocumented, failing to add meaningful value beyond the bare 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('browse and search symbols') and resource ('within a specific Apple framework'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_technologies (which lists frameworks) and search_apple_docs (which searches documentation). It explicitly mentions exploring APIs, finding views/controllers/delegates, and discovering types, providing concrete use cases.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use after list_technologies to get framework identifiers.' This clearly indicates a prerequisite and workflow context, helping the agent understand the proper sequence and alternative tools (e.g., use list_technologies first).

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