check_dsym_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool 'checks if debug symbols are missing' but does not disclose the output format (e.g., boolean, list of missing symbols), side effects (read-only), or any other behavioral details. This lack of transparency could hinder agent's understanding.

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 sentence that is direct and to the point. No unnecessary words, making it efficient for quick parsing.

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?

Given simplicity of tool (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks information about return values. Agent may need to infer the response format from the tool name. For a simple check, this is acceptable but slightly incomplete.

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 parameters are already documented. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, hence baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states verb 'check', resource 'debug symbols (dSYM files)', and context 'for iOS/macOS crashes'. It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes from sibling tools which deal with issues and releases.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the tool is unique among siblings, the description does not provide context for when checking dSYM status is appropriate or mention any prerequisites.

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