full_static_analysis

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 lists capabilities (what it analyzes) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as performance, side effects (e.g., it is read-only), or limitations. The description is adequate but minimal in transparency.

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: one line summarizing the purpose, a bullet list of what it combines, and a single parameter description. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description sufficiently explains the tool's input and actions but lacks any detail about the output or return value. For a tool with no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the analysis result is (e.g., a report or structured data). This incomplete description leaves the agent guessing about the result format.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter descriptions rely entirely on the tool description. The description adds meaningful context: it specifies that 'path' must be a path to an IPA file or Mach-O binary, which is beyond the schema's type of string. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it runs a full static analysis pipeline on an IPA or Mach-O binary and explicitly lists the combined components (IPA parsing, ObjC class dump, etc.). This distinguishes it from individual sibling tools like analyze_macho_objc or check_encryption, making its purpose very specific 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 comprehensive analysis when you want all static checks combined, while siblings are for specific sub-tasks. It does not explicitly state 'when not to use' or alternative scenarios, but the context of sibling tools provides implicit guidance. A score of 4 reflects clear context without explicit exclusions.

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