binary_size

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 indicates the tool analyzes (a read-only operation) but does not disclose whether it modifies anything, requires specific binary format, or has performance implications. It is minimal but not misleading or contradictory.

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, informative sentence with zero waste. It is perfectly concise for a tool with one parameter and a straightforward 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?

Given that the tool has one parameter, a clear schema description, and a simple purpose, the description is nearly complete. It could optionally mention the output format, but that is not required without an output schema. The only minor gap is no behavioral disclosure, which is partially covered by the purpose.

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% with a single parameter clearly documented as 'Absolute path to the Mach-O binary'. The description does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 tool analyzes Mach-O binary size breakdown by segment, specifying both the resource (binary) and the focus (size by segment). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like ipa_analyze or build_warnings that examine different aspects.

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 the tool is for analyzing binary size breakdown, but does not explicitly state when to use it over similar tools like ipa_analyze. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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