ios_google_services

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior beyond the name: it parses a specific plist and additionally scans all text plist and JSON files in the IPA. However, it omits whether the scan is read-only (implied but not stated), how large/expensive the scan is, or what happens when no Google config exists.

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?

Three tight sentences with the extraction target front-loaded, followed by the specific plist and the fallback scanning behavior. No filler, though the final sentence could be trimmed or merged to be maximally efficient.

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?

With a single required parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it enumerates the exact fields returned (API key, project ID, database URL, storage bucket, GCM sender ID, OAuth client IDs), which compensates for the missing output schema. It only lacks guidance on result shape or handling of missing configuration.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents ipa_path as an absolute path. The description adds no further parameter meaning (no mention of accepting a directory, extracted bundle, or relative paths). Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the work.

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 verb and resource: extracts Google and Firebase configuration from an IPA, and names the concrete artifact it parses (GoogleService-Info.plist) plus the fields it pulls. This clearly separates it from android_google_services by platform, though it never acknowledges overlap with ios_secrets_scanner, which the 'pattern scanning' clause suggests.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer it should call this when analyzing an iOS app for Firebase/Google config. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites (e.g., the IPA must be unencrypted or extracted), and no pointer to ios_secrets_scanner or android_google_services as alternatives.

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