create_app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this WRITES a NEW project and deliberately does not implement the full idea. However, it does not mention side effects, whether an existing directory would be overwritten, required permissions, or what the response/output contains, so some behavioral ambiguity remains.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the follow-up workflow direction is useful rather than redundant. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description gives enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially by clarifying the starter-only scope and pointing to subsequent steps. Still, without an output schema or annotations, an agent is left guessing about return values, generated file structure, and failure behavior—gaps that matter for a project-generation tool.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by referencing the implementation brief and optional XcodeGen specification/icon layers, which map to the 'brief' and 'xcodegen' parameters. However, it does not clarify the expected format of 'name' or 'brief' beyond what the schema already provides, leaving part of the parameter semantics implicit.

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 names a specific verb ('Create') and clear resources: an editable Swift app starter, an implementation brief, and optional XcodeGen/icon layers. It also explicitly scopes the tool by stating it does NOT implement the full app idea, which distinguishes it from planning or implementation tools.

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 gives a clear workflow context: create the starter project first, then use source retrieval, review, and simulator tools to implement and verify. It does not name specific sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the 'does not implement the full app idea' statement provides enough guidance for when to stop using this tool.

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