preflight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It describes the tool as running checks and returning a report, without mentioning potential side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or limitations (e.g., handling of invalid project paths). The coverage is adequate but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose and scope, the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has one required parameter and no output schema. The description specifies what the report contains (prioritized, covering specific checks) but does not detail the output format. For a simple tool, this is nearly complete; a small gap in return structure could be improved.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds that projectPath can be a repo root or ios/ directory, which is valuable extra guidance beyond what the schema provides ('Absolute path to the iOS project'). This justifies a higher score.

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 runs all App Store readiness checks and returns a single prioritized report, listing specific checks (privacy manifest, Info.plist, third-party SDKs, placeholder traps). It positions itself as the starting point, distinguishing from siblings like asc_check_submission or check_placeholder_content.

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 explicitly says 'Start here' and frames the tool as answering 'is this app ready to submit?', indicating when to use it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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