analyze_swift_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it requires special permissions, or what happens if the binary has no Swift symbols. The default for max_symbols is noted, but overall transparency is lacking.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence followed by two documented parameters. Every word is necessary, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings. However, it lacks information on the return format (e.g., list of demangled symbols) and explicit confirmation of read-only behavior, leaving minor gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining 'path' as 'Path to a Mach-O binary' and 'max_symbols' as 'Maximum number of symbols to demangle (default: 500).' This adds necessary meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 'Demangle Swift symbols from a Mach-O binary,' specifying the verb 'demangle' and the resource 'Swift symbols from a Mach-O binary.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_macho_archs' and 'analyze_macho_objc' that focus on other aspects of Mach-O files.

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 usage for demangling Swift symbols but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks information on prerequisites, when not to use, or specific scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.

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