macho_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. Listing the extracted artifacts conveys useful behavioral context about what the tool reports, and 'analysis' implies a read-only operation. However, it never states that the operation is non-destructive, how large outputs are bounded, or the role of the limit parameter.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler; the format scope (fat/universal binaries) and the enumerated outputs are front-loaded. Every clause adds information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the format coverage is adequate. But with zero annotations the description should at least assert the operation is a safe read and clarify the limit parameter; those omissions leave the definition minimally complete.

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%. The single required 'path' is self-evident from context, but 'limit' (default 300) is undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving the agent to guess what it truncates. This is a partial gap rather than a total one.

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?

States a specific resource (Mach-O binaries, macOS/iOS) and enumerates the artifacts extracted (header, CPU type, PIE/NX, code signature, linked libraries, segments, imports/exports). This clearly separates it from format peers like pe_info, elf_info, and wasm_info. The verb 'analysis' is somewhat generic, keeping it from a 5.

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 macOS/iOS/Mach-O framing implicitly scopes when this tool applies versus pe_info/elf_info/wasm_info, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. path must be a binary), and no named alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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