XC-MCP: XCode CLI wrapper

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes what information is returned (e.g., enable/disable state, disk usage, privacy info) and implies a read-only operation through 'Get', but lacks details on potential side effects, error conditions, or response format that would be helpful for an AI 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 well-structured with bullet points and an 'Essential for' section, making it easy to scan. Every sentence earns its place by providing specific details without redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete, covering purpose, usage, and output details. However, it lacks explicit information on return values or error handling, which would be beneficial for an AI agent despite the absence of an output schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by implying the tool's comprehensive nature and the types of data returned, which helps contextualize the 'includeStorageInfo' parameter's effect on the output, though it does not explicitly detail parameter interactions.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Persistence System Status'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'cache-get-stats' or 'cache-get-config' by focusing on persistent state management rather than general cache operations. The title 'Get Persistence System Status' reinforces this, avoiding tautology.

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 'Essential for' section provides clear context on when to use this tool (e.g., monitoring cache effectiveness, troubleshooting persistence issues), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings like 'cache-get-stats' for non-persistent cache details.

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