xcode_clean_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('clean') but doesn't explain what 'clean' entails (e.g., deleting temporary files, resetting caches), whether it's safe or destructive, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 action ('clean build artifacts') without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the target ('for an Xcode project'), making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., what 'clean' does, side effects), usage context, and output expectations. For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, this minimal description leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 (project_path and scheme) with clear descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or default behaviors). 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 verb ('clean') and resource ('build artifacts for an Xcode project'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like xcode_build_project or xcode_archive_project by focusing on cleanup rather than building or archiving. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., it could mention it's not about testing or device operations).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing Xcode installed), typical scenarios (e.g., after build failures or before fresh builds), or exclusions (e.g., not for cleaning derived data outside the project). The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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