ios_permissions_checker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool extracts data from Info.plist and categorizes permissions by risk level with explanations, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, error handling, or constraints such as malformed or encrypted IPA handling.

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 definition is two tight sentences with no wasted language. The core extraction purpose is front-loaded, followed by the useful output detail about risk categorization.

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 read/analysis tool, the description covers the essential purpose and gives a meaningful preview of the return value even without an output schema. It is only slightly incomplete because it leaves behavioral constraints and explicit read-only semantics unstated.

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?

The only parameter, ipa_path, is fully documented in the schema as an absolute path to the IPA file. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies when schema coverage is complete.

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 names a specific verb and resource: extracting privacy permission usage descriptions from an IPA's Info.plist, and it also states the output categorization. It is clearly distinct from adjacent iOS tools in substance, but it does not explicitly name a sibling or clarify when to choose it over ios_entitlements_checker 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 description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or routing against alternatives. A reader can infer it is for iOS IPA permission inspection, but there is no stated condition for selecting it instead of sibling iOS analysis tools.

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