ios_secrets_scanner

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 the two-layer mechanism, including text resource scanning and binary extraction followed by the strings command. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what kind of findings are returned, or any limitations such as false positives or performance considerations.

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 two tightly structured sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the layered scanning mechanism.

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?

The description is adequate for understanding the scanning approach and the schema fully covers the two parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotation guidance, it does not describe the return format, error behavior, or how the findings are structured.

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 100%, so both ipa_path and min_length are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the schema does the heavy lifting, making the baseline score appropriate.

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: scans an IPA for hardcoded secrets and API keys. It also explains the two scanning layers, making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings such as ios_binary_strings, so it falls short of 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 description explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention ios_binary_strings, android_secrets_scanner, or conditions such as when a full secrets scan is preferable to a binary-only scan.

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