entitlements_check

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or what qualifies as a 'built app bundle'. It also does not clarify if it reads from the embedded.mobileprovision or the binary. This lack of context leaves the agent guessing about side effects and requirements.

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 sentence with no wasted words. While it could benefit from additional structure (e.g., bullet points for return format), it is compact and front-loaded with the core action.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return format (e.g., list of entitlements, JSON) and edge cases (e.g., missing entitlements, non-existent bundle). It is insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 for the single parameter appPath is 100% (already described in the schema as 'Absolute path to the .app bundle'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond that, so a baseline score 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 verb 'Show' and the resource 'entitlements embedded in a built app bundle', which differentiates it from sibling tools like profile_inspect or xcode_build_settings. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when inspecting provisioning profiles or code signing. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a valid .app bundle path) or when not to use it.

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