build_for_sim

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. It identifies the operation as a simulator build but does not disclose side effects, failure behavior, permission needs, or whether it installs/launches anything. Only the project path format is clarified.

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?

Very concise and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by a brief parameter hint. The second sentence is slightly fragmentary but still efficient and useful.

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?

With no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and two required parameters, the definition is missing key context about scheme semantics, device selection, and the build workflow. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the invocation context remains thin.

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%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It explains the 'project' parameter as a .xcodeproj/.xcworkspace path, but says nothing about the required 'scheme' parameter or the optional 'device_name' default.

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?

States a specific action (build), target (project), and platform context (simulator verification). Clear enough for an agent to understand what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling build tools such as build_test or build_archive.

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 parenthetical '(verification)' hints that this is for simulator build verification, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like build_test or build_archive. Usage must be inferred.

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