check_dsym_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds only the platform scope (iOS/macOS), disclosing nothing about auth requirements, whether it scans the whole project or a single event, or what a 'missing' result looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the purpose and platform scope land immediately.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and complete schema descriptions, this is close to sufficient. However, it omits whether the check covers the whole project or the optional single event, which is the key behavioral ambiguity for invoking it correctly.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already explains project_slug and event_id. The description mentions no parameters at all and adds no meaning about how the optional event_id narrows the check versus a project-wide scan. Baseline 3 is 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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('debug symbols / dSYM files') plus the platform scope ('iOS/macOS crashes'). No sibling tool overlaps with this function, so no differentiation is needed, but the description stops short of stating exactly what the check returns or evaluates.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The agent must infer that this is for investigating symbolication problems during crash triage, which is reasonable but unstated.

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