run_project_until_terminated

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that the app can be force-stopped and logs extracted. However, it does not fully explain the destructive nature (e.g., potential data loss or state changes) beyond the force-stop behavior.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded. It uses bullet points for args and separate lines for use cases, making it easy to scan. 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?

The description covers the key behaviors (automated run, timeout, force-stop, log extraction) and return format. It could mention what happens when the app terminates naturally, but it is implicit. Overall, it is sufficiently complete given the annotations and 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?

All 5 parameters are described in the 'Args' section with clear explanations. The regex_filter description is slightly ambiguous but still understandable. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well.

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 app and waits for termination. It specifies the context (Xcode/Simulator) and use cases (automated tests, CLI tools), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like run_project_with_user_interaction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool (automated tasks, apps with exit points) and implies when not to use (no user interaction required). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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