ipa_permissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately indicates a read-only extraction from a file, but it does not explain what happens if the IPA file is missing, if the Info.plist lacks these keys, or if there are multiple entries. For a simple readonly scanner, the current level of transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 efficiently conveys the purpose and key examples (NSCameraUsageDescription). Every word adds value, with no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and perfectly sized for a tool with one parameter.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete. It covers the core purpose and examples. Minor gaps include missing return format details and edge-case behavior, but the tool's domain is narrow enough that these are not critical gaps.

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% for the single parameter, but the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Absolute path to the .ipa file'. It does not clarify path formats (relative vs. absolute), wildcard support, or validation behavior. Since the schema already covers the parameter, a 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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing ('List privacy usage descriptions ... from an IPA'), clearly identifies the tool's function and scope, and is well differentiated from the 60+ sibling tools—none of which reference IPA permission scanning. The mention of concrete keys (NSCameraUsageDescription, etc.) confirms a focused extraction task.

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 that this tool is appropriate when you need to inspect permission strings in an IPA file, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like app_privacy or ipa_analyze, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., that the IPA must exist and be accessible). Without this context, an agent may infer correct usage from the clarity but lacks explicit guidance.

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