ipa_analyze

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 implies a read-only analysis but does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify the file or require special permissions. The description is somewhat transparent about outputs but lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.

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 that lists the analysis outputs, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by adding 'returns') to improve clarity.

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 analysis tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a clear list of what is analyzed, making it reasonably complete. It distinguishes from sibling tools but does not describe the return format, which is acceptable given no output schema.

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% as the only parameter, ipaPath, has a description 'Absolute path to the .ipa file'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 states 'Analyze an IPA file: size, bundle ID, version, architectures, embedded frameworks', which is a specific verb and resource, and the listed analysis outputs differentiate it from sibling tools like ipa_permissions and binary_size that cover only subsets.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the IPA file must exist and be valid) or when to prefer sibling tools like ipa_permissions for permission analysis alone.

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