audit_ios_privacy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, matching the description's read behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it details specific checks (e.g., NS*UsageDescription contradictions, ATS exemptions, secrets in bundle) and the optional input combinations that trigger different analyses. No contradictions.

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 and well-structured, starting with the main purpose and then listing specific checks. Every sentence adds value, and it avoids unnecessary repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple input combinations, various checks), the description covers the main functionality and references the return shape being the same as audit_page. However, it does not describe the output structure in detail, which might be needed since there is no output schema. Still, it is fairly complete for an experienced user.

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 description coverage is 100% (all 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context by explaining the purpose of each parameter (e.g., source enables code-vs-declaration checks, app_json for Expo, info_plist for native), but the schema already provides adequate descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 audits iOS/Expo app privacy posture for App Review and user trust, with a specific verb ('Audit'), resource ('iOS/React Native/Expo app privacy'), and scope (reading Info.plist or app.json, plus optional files). It lists concrete flags it checks (missing descriptions, contradictions, etc.), differentiating it from sibling audit tools like audit_ios_a11y or audit_page.

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 explains when to use the tool (to audit privacy posture) and mentions the return shape is the same as audit_page, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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