check_cocoapods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the check is read-only, whether the includeOutdated parameter triggers network operations or additional processing, or what exactly 'setup information' contains. This leaves important behavior undisclosed.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and efficient.

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 check with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not explain what 'setup information' includes or how includeOutdated modifies the output, and it lacks an explicit read-only guarantee. More detail would improve completeness.

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The input schema covers 100% of the parameters and includes a clear description for includeOutdated ('Check for outdated pods and include update information. Default: false'). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Checks') on a specific resource ('active project') regarding CocoaPods usage, and indicates it returns setup information. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pod_install, pod_update, or pod_outdated, which perform different actions.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to verify whether the active project uses CocoaPods and to get setup information. It implies a diagnostic role before using other pod tools, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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