Run an XCUITest with leak detection (CI-runnable)

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

With no annotations, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: building, launching, capturing baseline/after memgraphs, diffing, and returning pass/fail based on new root cycle blocks. It also explains the allowlist mechanism and CI gating exit code. Some side effects (like temp files in outputDir) are implicit but clear enough.

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 a single focused paragraph, immediately front-loaded with the CI tag. Every sentence adds value: it covers build, capture, diff, fail condition, allowlist usage, and exit code. No wasted words.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains return behavior ('passed: false' on failure, non-zero exit code) and mentions the optional htmlReportPath field. It does not explicitly describe the success return value or other response fields, but for a 9-parameter tool this is adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with good parameter descriptions. The tool description adds high-level context (e.g., why appName is needed for pgrep, what allowlistPatterns do) but does not go beyond the schema's own descriptions substantially. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool runs an XCUITest with leak detection, capturing two memgraphs and diffing them. It distinguishes from siblings like 'detectLeaksInXCTest' (which likely targets XCTest) and other analyze tools by specifying XCUITest+CI gating.

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 explicitly says 'Designed for CI gating: non-zero exit code on failure', implying usage in CI pipelines. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like other memory analysis tools for non-test scenarios.

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