xcode_diagnostic_analyzer

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it provides classification, suggestions, and documentation links, and supports specific error types. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., network calls), privacy implications, or limitations (e.g., offline 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, using a bullet list for capabilities and a final line for supported errors. It is front-loaded with the main action and has no redundant information.

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 tool's purpose, capabilities, and supported error types. However, it lacks details about the output format or behavior when no errors are found. Given no output schema, a brief mention of return value would enhance completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no significant parameter details beyond the schema; it merely reiterates supported error types. The descriptions in the schema are already clear.

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 analyzes Xcode build logs and error messages, listing specific capabilities (classification, fix-it suggestions, documentation links). It distinguishes itself from siblings (fetch_latest_apple_docs, swift_evolution_check) by focusing on diagnostic analysis.

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 when encountering Xcode build errors, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives. The context from siblings helps, but no direct exclusions.

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