run_project_unmonitored

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

Annotations indicate destructive and open-world; the description adds meaning by explaining the app continues running until manually stopped, with no monitoring or log extraction. Does not contradict annotations.

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?

Concise and front-loaded: first sentence states the core action. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Clean structure with Args and Returns sections.

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?

Covers behavior, workflow, and use cases. Could mention prerequisites (e.g., project must be buildable) but overall sufficient given output schema exists for return details.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by describing project_path as path to Xcode project/workspace and scheme as optional with default value, adding clear semantics beyond the schema.

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 launches an app in Xcode and returns immediately, distinguishing it from siblings like run_project_until_terminated and run_project_with_user_interaction by emphasizing no monitoring, no automatic termination.

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?

Explicitly states it's perfect for long-running apps, servers, and extended manual testing. Provides workflow hint to use get_runtime_output later. Could be more explicit about when not to use, but the context is clear.

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