XC-MCP: XCode CLI wrapper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: '1-hour intelligent caching prevents expensive re-runs', 'Validates Xcode installation and provides clear error messages', and 'Consistent response format across all project types'. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like file system changes or network usage, which could be relevant for a caching tool.

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 key advantages, using bullet points for clarity. However, the final sentence ('Lists targets...') could be integrated earlier to improve flow, and some phrasing is slightly verbose (e.g., 'with smart caching that remembers results to avoid redundant operations' repeats earlier points).

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, benefits, and behavioral traits like caching. A minor gap is the lack of details on return values (e.g., JSON structure), but this is mitigated by mentioning 'clean JSON' and 'consistent response format'.

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 schema already documents both parameters ('projectPath' and 'outputFormat'). The description doesn't add specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid project paths or details on how 'outputFormat' affects behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Lists targets, schemes, and configurations for Xcode projects and workspaces' with 'intelligent caching'. It distinguishes from the direct CLI alternative ('xcodebuild -list') and from sibling tools like 'xcodebuild-build' or 'xcodebuild-clean' by focusing on listing project information rather than building or cleaning.

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 explicit usage guidance: '⚡ **Prefer this over 'xcodebuild -list'**' and lists advantages over the direct CLI alternative (e.g., JSON output, caching, validation). It implicitly suggests when to use it (for structured project info) versus when not to (if raw CLI output is needed), though it doesn't explicitly compare to all sibling tools.

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