xcode_build_for_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavior ('automatic signing') which is crucial for device builds, but doesn't mention other traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects (e.g., modifying project settings), error conditions, or output format. It adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and key constraint ('automatic signing'), but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or what the build output entails. It's complete enough for basic understanding but has clear gaps.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter relationships or constraints). 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 specific action ('Build project'), target ('for physical device'), and key constraint ('with automatic signing'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'xcode_build_project' (generic build) and 'xcode_run_on_device' (run vs. build).

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 implies usage context ('for physical device' vs. simulator) and references 'device_id' from 'list_physical_devices', but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'xcode_build_project' for simulators. It provides clear prerequisites but lacks explicit exclusions.

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