ios_codesign

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool uses the Mac's keychain certificate, that ad-hoc signing is development-only and won't install on real devices, and that notarization requires Apple Developer Program membership plus notarytool setup. This is good transparency. It could be more explicit about side effects (e.g., modifying the .app bundle's signature), but the constraints and requirements are well covered.

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 well-structured: a lead sentence stating purpose, a paragraph of context and requirements, and a bulleted Args list. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose and prerequisites, making it easy to scan.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, certificate selection, notarization constraints, and all parameters. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. The 'Args:' section does exactly that, covering profile, app_path, certificate, entitlement, notarize, timeout, and studio_root, with meaningful details like certificate format and ad-hoc usage. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Codesign an iOS/macOS .app bundle on the remote Mac (paclient -c).' This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ios_create_ipa or ios_install_ipa, which handle different steps of the iOS deployment pipeline. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 context on when to use the tool: 'The .app must already exist on the Mac (typically in PAServer's scratch dir after build_dproj + Deploy ran).' It also explains the certificate options and notarization prerequisites. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context makes it clear this is the code-signing step. It lacks explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance, but the prerequisites and caveats are sufficient for most agents.

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