ios_frameworks_detector

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful output semantics (framework listing, category mapping, privacy highlighting), but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, local/offline, or free of side effects, nor does it describe failure modes or exact return structure.

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 three concise sentences with no wasted text. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by classification details and the privacy-relevant highlight.

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 simple one-parameter static analysis tool, the description covers the main operation and the kind of output an agent can expect. It is slightly incomplete because there is no output schema and it does not clarify read-only behavior or exact output shape, but it is generally adequate.

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?

There is one required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining that ipa_path is an absolute path to the IPA file. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond that, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists third-party frameworks bundled inside an IPA, sourced from Frameworks/, and maps them to categories. This is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as ios_binary_strings or ios_manifest_analyzer.

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 mention of categorizing frameworks and highlighting privacy-relevant SDKs implies a use case for SDK inventory and privacy review. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related iOS analysis tools, and it names no alternatives or exclusions.

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