Run an XCTest unit-test bundle with leak detection (CI-runnable)

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it builds for testing, launches with optional filter, polls for runner process, captures two memgraphs, diffs them, and returns false on new root cycles. It also details edge cases (early runner exit, allowlistPatterns, exit codes) and explains the processName parameter for app-hosted test bundles.

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 and front-loaded with the sibling relationship and target. Every sentence contributes value, though it is somewhat lengthy. It could be slightly more concise, but overall it efficiently conveys necessary 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return behavior (passed: false, failureReason, htmlReportPath) and exit code. It covers edge cases, per-test granularity, and caller responsibilities. Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, many behavioral nuances), the description is remarkably complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema descriptions; it contextualizes testCaseFilter for per-test usage and mentions processName customization, but these are already covered in the schema. No parameters lack explanation.

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 it runs XCTest unit-test bundles with leak detection, identifies itself as a sibling to detectLeaksInXCUITest, and explains the process (build, launch, capture memgraphs, diff). It distinguishes itself by targeting XCTest unit-test schemes rather than UI tests.

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 clear usage context: designed for CI gating, per-test granularity via testCaseFilter, aggregation responsibility on caller, and notes about fast unit tests with early runner exit. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or provide alternatives beyond the sibling mention, the guidance is sufficient for effective use.

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