analyze_macho_objc

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the use of 'nm + strings' but omits critical details such as output format (e.g., dump format, class listing depth), whether it works on all Mach-O binaries, error behavior, or performance characteristics. The lack of annotations amplifies these gaps.

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 concise, using two short sentences to convey purpose and the single parameter. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could benefit from a brief sentence on output or limitations.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects), the description lacks essential context: no output specification, no mention of what 'dump' means (list of strings? structured JSON?), no error conditions, and no prerequisites. Annotations would help but 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?

The schema has only one parameter 'path' with 0% description coverage, so the description is the sole documentation. It adds basic context: 'Path to a Mach-O binary', which clarifies what the path should point to. However, it does not specify file requirements (e.g., must be executable, fat vs thin).

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 the tool's purpose: 'Dump Objective-C classes from a Mach-O binary using static analysis (nm + strings).' It specifies a concrete action, resource, and technique, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_swift_symbols and analyze_macho_objc_deep.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_macho_objc_deep or analyze_swift_symbols. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations (e.g., encrypted binaries), or contexts where this tool is preferred.

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