Audit App Store submission readiness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discharges most of it by listing the exact checks performed. It implies a non-mutating audit but does not explicitly state whether files are modified or how findings are returned, which is a minor gap.

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?

One compact sentence enumerates all checks in a structured colon list, and a second sentence provides the usage trigger. There is no filler, repetition of schema content, or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter audit tool, the description covers what it checks and when to use it. It does not describe the shape of the returned report, but the simple input and absent output schema make this a minor omission rather than a blocking gap.

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 the schema already defines 'path' as an absolute path to the Swift project root. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed for this single, self-explanatory parameter.

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 action ('Check a Swift project') and enumerates concrete issue categories: Info.plist purpose strings, PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy, localization, accessibility labels, and print() logging. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling review tools focused on code quality, concurrency, security, or architecture.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before submitting to App Review,' giving a clear trigger condition. It does not name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the sibling tool set makes the boundary reasonably inferable.

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