get_xcode_projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it uses mdfind (Spotlight indexing), explains depth meaning, and return format. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and structured with sections (general, mdfind, Args, Returns). It is efficient but could be slightly more concise; nevertheless, every sentence adds value.

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 5 parameters (all optional) and an output schema, the description covers all parameters, return value, and algorithmic behavior (depth interpretation). It is complete for usage.

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%, but the description includes a detailed 'Args:' section explaining each of the 5 parameters (search_path, include_recents, max_search_depth, regex_filter, max_results) with defaults and behaviors, fully compensating.

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 searches for .xcodeproj and .xcworkspace files, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like build_project, clean_project, etc. that perform different actions.

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 explains that if search_path is empty, it searches all allowed folders, and it mentions the use of mdfind. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, though sibling tools are all different in purpose.

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