ios_get_info_plist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation (non-destructive), but does not disclose details such as whether the tool returns the entire plist as a dictionary, what happens if the file does not exist, or whether it respects standard iOS configuration. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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?

The description is a single short sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and optionality, with no unnecessary words. It earns its place perfectly.

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 the tool's simplicity (read a plist, optionally filter keys), the description covers the main usage but lacks edge-case handling (missing file, invalid keys) and does not specify return value structure (though no output schema is present). With no annotations, a bit more detail on error behavior would improve completeness, but for a read tool this is adequate.

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 explain parameters. It mentions 'optionally only the given keys', which implies the 'keys' parameter filters output, but it does not explicitly describe 'project_path' or the format of keys. However, the minimal parameter count (2) and the description's hint partially compensate; a 4 is reasonable for the limited information given.

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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Read') on a specific resource ('ios/Runner/Info.plist') and mentions optional key filtering, distinguishing it from siblings like ios_set_info_plist_value and ios_remove_info_plist_key which mutate the file. It is concise and unambiguous.

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?

The description implies this tool is for reading the Info.plist, and the sibling set includes modifiers (ios_set_info_plist_value, ios_remove_info_plist_key) but no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives. It does not state exclusions or prerequisites, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to infer usage in a read context.

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