ios_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It implies a mutating build operation with side effects (generating project files via xcodegen, writing build artifacts) but says nothing about permissions, duration, failure modes, or whether it modifies the workspace.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, which is good. But its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from efficient expression of complete information.

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 build tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what the tool returns, what it modifies, or how to invoke it correctly relative to the other iOS tools.

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% and the description mentions neither 'config' nor 'warnings'. It does not explain the debug/release enum values or what the warnings flag toggles, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 the underlying command (xcodebuild) and implies a build action, which distinguishes it from siblings like ios_install and ios_logs. However, the noun '采集器' (collector) is vague about what is actually produced or gathered, so the agent must guess whether this compiles, gathers build artifacts, or just wraps the command.

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 parenthetical '必要时先 xcodegen' gives a conditional prerequisite, which is the only usage hint present. There is no guidance on when to choose this over ios_env_check, ios_install, or ios_logs, and no statement of required preconditions or exclusions.

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