ios_env_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The '(已脱敏)' note usefully discloses that output is redacted of sensitive data, but it says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or how long it takes. One behavioral hint is not enough for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 compact sentence front-loads the verb and lists the checked resources without filler. Slightly dense given the parenthetical redaction note, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic with no output schema and no annotations, the description enumerates the inspected surfaces, which is the core information. However, it omits what a caller should do with results and when to invoke it relative to the build/install siblings.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed for a full environment sweep.

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 (检查/check) and enumerates the concrete resources inspected: Xcode, signing identities, paired devices, tooling, and project files. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ios_build, ios_install, and ios_logs, though it never labels itself a preflight/environment diagnostic explicitly.

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 guidance on when to run this versus the sibling ios_* tools; the agent must infer it is a pre-build environment sanity check. No prerequisites, no ordering advice relative to ios_build/ios_install.

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