dsym_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. While it mentions the verification method (UUID comparison), it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., exit code, success/failure message, or boolean), how it behaves on mismatch (throws error vs. returns false), or whether it requires permissions. Important behavioral traits are omitted.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's action. Every word serves a purpose. It is concise, though it could be slightly restructured to include return value information without increasing length significantly.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain the tool's return value or side effects to make it complete for an agent. It fails to do so – the agent won't know how to interpret the result (success/failure, exit code, or thrown error). For a simple two-parameter tool, this is a significant gap.

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% with clear descriptions ('Absolute path to the .dSYM file', 'Absolute path to the binary'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema – no constraints, format hints, or examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already defines the parameters adequately.

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's purpose: 'Verify that a dSYM file matches a binary by comparing UUIDs'. It uses a specific verb ('Verify') + resource ('dSYM file matches binary') + method ('comparing UUIDs'), which is precise. This purpose is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on building, archiving, device management, etc.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what prerequisites exist. For example, it does not mention that this tool is meant for post-build validation or that it might be used after an archive step. Sibling tools like xcode_archive or build_warnings are not referenced. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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