app_decrypt

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and readOnly=false, and the description goes beyond them: it discloses that the dump runs as a background job, that results are verified via cryptid=0/UUID/SHA-256, and that binary_path is the handoff artifact for objc_dump/ida_open_binary. Missing is any sense of cost/duration, failure modes, or permission requirements for a destructive long-running operation.

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 dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core action and defaults before the caveats and handoff target. Every clause carries information, though the compressed hyphenated jargon (cryptid=0, frida-ios-dump, bounded loaded candidates) makes it heavier to parse than necessary.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still names the key return fields, which is helpful rather than redundant. For a destructive, background, session-dependent tool it covers prerequisites, scope, and next steps well; only timing/expectations around the background job and the undocumented pagination params are absent.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does explain the non-obvious ones: module_name/module_path select a framework, action=modules lists instead of dumping, and background is the default. It says nothing about device_id, bundle_id, limit, or offset, leaving half the surface undocumented in both places.

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 and resource — decrypt one loaded app Mach-O — plus the implementation basis (maintained frida-ios-dump code over an existing Frida/SSH session) and defaults (main executable, background job). It also names the downstream consumers (objc_dump, ida_open_binary) and the sibling-style action=modules mode, so it is clearly separable from its neighbors.

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?

Gives clear operating context: the app must already be loaded, an existing Frida/SSH session is required, module_name/path switches to a framework, and action=modules is the non-dumping listing path. It also carves out explicit negative scope (no IPA packaging, no forced framework loading). What it lacks is an explicit statement of when to prefer this over direct objc_dump/ida_open_binary entry points.

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