Run Xcode tests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core behavior (runs xcodebuild test), the target resource, and the destination requirement. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., build artifacts, derived data writes), runtime expectations, or what success/failure looks like, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, and every sentence adds a distinct piece of information (action, usage context, precondition). There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers the high-level purpose and the destination requirement. It does not explain how to choose between project and workspace, what scheme is needed, or what side effects/outputs the agent should expect. For a complex build/test tool this is incomplete.

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 compensate for documenting all six parameters. It only mentions project/workspace and the destination requirement, leaving scheme (a required parameter), configuration, and derivedDataPath unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to construct a correct call without external knowledge.

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 action ('Run xcodebuild test') and the resource ('a project or workspace'), and adds a timing context ('before visual review') that distinguishes it from sibling review tools. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 context for when to use the tool ('verify runtime/test behavior before visual review') and states a key precondition ('Requires an explicit destination'). It does not mention exclusions or point to alternatives like build_project for compilation-only tasks, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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