build_export_ipa

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not that it shells out to xcodebuild, not the host/toolchain requirements, not that it writes files into export_dir, not what happens on failure or whether output is overwritten. A single command line is far short of adequate for a 3-required-parameter mutating build step.

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?

It is undeniably front-loaded with zero filler, but the extreme brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. There is no wasted sentence simply because there are almost no sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a tool with three required, undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description should at minimum explain the inputs and preconditions. It leaves an agent unable to call the tool correctly without outside knowledge.

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 0% for three required parameters. The '-exportArchive' flag faintly implies archive_path and export_options_plist, and '.ipa' faintly implies export_dir, but no parameter is named or explained, and key facts (plist is a file path, expected plist keys, directory must exist) are absent from both schema and description.

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 maps the tool to a concrete command ('xcodebuild -exportArchive') and its output ('.ipa'), so an informed agent can infer it exports an existing Xcode archive into a signed .ipa. However, it never states this in plain terms and offers no differentiation from the sibling 'build_archive', which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus 'build_archive' or any other build tool, no stated prerequisites (an archive must already exist, xcodebuild/macOS required), and no mention of ordering in a pipeline. The agent must guess entirely.

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