XcodeBuildMCP

by getsentry

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation2/5
The tool set has significant overlap and ambiguity, particularly in build and test operations where multiple tools differ only by target (project vs. workspace) or identifier type (UUID vs. name). For example, there are 4 variants each for building, getting app paths, and testing on simulators, making it easy for an agent to misselect. While descriptions clarify parameters, the sheer number of similar tools creates confusion.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a clear verb_noun structure (e.g., build_dev_proj, list_sims, describe_ui). However, there are minor deviations like 'button' (noun only) and 'doctor' (no verb), and some names are overly verbose due to parameter distinctions (e.g., build_run_sim_name_ws). Overall, the naming is predictable but not perfectly uniform.
Tool Count2/5
With 83 tools, the count is excessive for the Xcode build and testing domain. Many tools are redundant variations (e.g., separate tools for project vs. workspace, UUID vs. name), leading to bloat. A more streamlined set with parameterized options would be more appropriate, as the current size overwhelms and complicates agent decision-making.
Completeness5/5
The tool set comprehensively covers Xcode development workflows, including building, testing, simulator management, UI automation, logging, and Swift package operations. It supports CRUD-like actions (e.g., create projects via scaffold, run/stop apps) across multiple platforms (iOS, macOS) with no obvious gaps, enabling end-to-end automation without dead ends.
Average 3.4/5 across 83 of 83 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 72 of 83 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 47 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 23, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'configurable delay' and the use of HID keycodes, but lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, error handling, performance implications, or what happens if the simulator is not ready. For a tool that likely interacts with a simulator (implying potential side effects), this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Press key sequence') and includes key details (HID keycodes, iOS simulator, configurable delay). It avoids redundancy and waste, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (simulator interaction with 3 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, error cases, return values, and detailed parameter usage, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 undocumented parameters. It mentions 'configurable delay' (hinting at the 'delay' parameter) and 'HID keycodes' (hinting at 'keyCodes'), but does not explain 'simulatorUuid' or provide details on keycode ranges, delay units, or parameter interactions. This adds minimal value beyond the bare schema, failing to adequately cover the 3 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Press key sequence') and target ('on iOS simulator'), specifying the mechanism ('using HID keycodes') and a configurable aspect ('with configurable delay'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'key_press' (single key) and 'type_text' (text input), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is specific but could be more explicit about sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool, mentioning the iOS simulator context but not explaining when to choose it over alternatives like 'key_press' or 'type_text'. No exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit alternatives are stated, leaving usage context implied rather than clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'Builds' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are needed, whether it runs synchronously or asynchronously, or what happens on failure (e.g., error handling). For a build tool with potential side effects, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the target (macOS app), method (xcodebuild), and source (project file), making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a build operation with 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial behavioral details (e.g., side effects, error handling) and doesn't explain the output or result format, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'arch' with enum values, 'projectPath' as path to .xcodeproj). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without compensating value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Builds') and resource ('macOS app using xcodebuild from a project file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'build_mac_ws' or 'build_dev_proj', which likely have similar purposes but different targets or approaches.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools like 'build_mac_ws' (likely for workspace), 'build_dev_proj' (likely for device), and 'build_run_mac_proj' (likely builds and runs), the description offers no context for selection, leaving the agent to guess based on names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Builds' but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation (likely not, as building implies mutation), what side effects occur (e.g., generates build artifacts), or any performance considerations (e.g., build time). The description lacks critical behavioral context for a build tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It uses precise terminology ('macOS app', 'xcodebuild', 'workspace') and avoids redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a build tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., build success/failure, output paths), behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, dependencies), or error handling, leaving significant gaps for the agent to navigate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'arch' specifies enum values, 'scheme' is required). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Builds') and target ('macOS app using xcodebuild from a workspace'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'build_mac_proj' (project-based) and 'build_dev_ws' (likely device-focused). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'build_run_mac_ws' (which likely builds and runs), making it slightly less specific than ideal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_mac_proj' (for projects), 'build_run_mac_ws' (for build-and-run), or 'swift_package_build' (for Swift packages). It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., Xcode installation) or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool builds and runs in one step, implying it's a mutation tool that executes code, but lacks details on permissions needed, side effects (e.g., if it overwrites files), runtime behavior, or error handling, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a build-and-run operation with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, error conditions, and usage context, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as default values or usage examples, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Builds and runs') and target ('a macOS app from a project file'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'build_mac_proj' (which likely only builds) or 'build_run_mac_ws' (which works with workspaces), missing full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description mentions 'in one step' but doesn't clarify scenarios where this combined build-and-run operation is preferred over separate build and run tools, nor does it reference any sibling tools for comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'in one step' suggesting combined build and run operation, but doesn't disclose execution environment requirements, permission needs, potential side effects, error handling, or output format. For a tool that performs both build and run operations, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that performs both build and run operations with 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'running' entails (launches app? runs tests?), what happens on success/failure, or how results are communicated. The context demands more comprehensive guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Builds and runs') and target ('a macOS app from a workspace'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from simpler build-only tools like 'build_mac_ws' by including the run step, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'build_run_mac_proj' which likely targets project files instead of workspaces.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_mac_ws' (build only) or 'build_run_mac_proj' (project-based). It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or constraints beyond what's implied by the name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions scanning behavior and default values, but lacks critical details: whether it's read-only (likely, but not stated), performance implications (e.g., time for deep scans), error handling (e.g., invalid paths), or output format (just says 'find' without specifying structure). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Scans a directory') and key details (default location, target file types). There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly addresses the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (directory scanning with parameters) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., list of paths, structured data), error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools (e.g., using discovered projects for building). For a discovery tool in a development context, more contextual guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (workspaceRoot, scanPath, maxDepth) with their types, defaults, and constraints. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions the default scan location but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: scanning a directory to find specific file types (.xcodeproj and .xcworkspace). It specifies the verb 'scans' and resource 'directory', and mentions the default location. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'discover_tools' or explain why this specific discovery is needed versus general tool discovery.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing Xcode installed), compare it to sibling tools like 'discover_tools' or project-building tools, or specify scenarios where this discovery is necessary (e.g., before building or testing). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool 'Gets the app bundle path' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it performs a build operation, requires Xcode installation, has side effects, or handles errors. The example hints at usage but lacks depth on how the tool behaves beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes an example, making it efficient. However, the example could be more concise, and the 'IMPORTANT' tag adds slight redundancy since required parameters are already in the schema. Overall, it's well-structured with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., a file path string), potential errors, or dependencies like Xcode. For a tool that likely interacts with build systems, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that 'projectPath' and 'scheme' are required (which is already in the schema). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('app bundle path for a macOS application'), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_mac_app_path_ws' or 'get_device_app_path_proj', which appear to serve similar purposes but with different inputs or contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance by stating 'Requires projectPath and scheme' and includes an example, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_mac_app_path_ws' or other path-retrieval tools in the sibling list. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs two actions (launch and log capture) but doesn't describe what happens if the app fails to launch, how logs are captured/returned, whether this blocks until app exits, or what permissions/requirements exist. For a tool with potential side effects, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters and no complex edge cases needing explanation. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that launches apps and captures logs with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what format logs are returned in, whether this is a blocking operation, what happens on failure, or how to access captured logs. The combination of mutation behavior and lack of output documentation creates significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide extra context about parameter interactions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('launches' and 'captures') and resources ('app in an iOS simulator' and 'logs'). It distinguishes from simpler launch tools like 'launch_app_sim' by adding the log capture functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'launch_app_sim_name_ws' which might have similar capabilities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'launch_app_sim' (which likely doesn't capture logs) or 'launch_app_sim_name_ws' (which uses workspace instead of UUID). There's no mention of prerequisites like needing a booted simulator or installed app.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or what 'default' entails, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'simulatorUuid' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool acts on a simulator, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Resets') and target ('simulator's location') with specificity, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'set_simulator_location'. However, it doesn't specify what 'default' means (e.g., factory reset, home location), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_simulator_location' or other simulator-related tools. The description implies usage for resetting location but lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios where it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While 'Sets' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify whether this change is persistent across simulator sessions, requires specific simulator states, or has any confirmation/error handling. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the location, whether there's confirmation, error conditions, or how this interacts with other simulator operations. The context signals indicate this tool modifies system state, yet the description provides minimal operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage situations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sets') and target ('custom GPS location for the simulator'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'reset_simulator_location', which appears to be a related tool for reverting to default location settings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reset_simulator_location' or other location-related operations. There's no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with insufficient context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 tool starts a log capture session and returns a session ID, but fails to mention critical behaviors such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it impacts simulator performance, how to stop the capture (hinted by sibling 'stop_sim_log_cap'), or what happens to existing logs. The default behavior note adds some value, but overall, it lacks essential operational details for a tool that initiates a persistent action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome, followed by a default behavior note. Every part earns its place: it states what the tool does, what it returns, and a key behavioral trait without any redundant or vague language. This is appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of starting a log capture session (a persistent, potentially resource-intensive operation), the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, how to manage the session (e.g., stopping it), or the format of returned data. The default behavior note is helpful but insufficient for a tool that likely requires careful handling in a workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the implications of 'captureConsole' or how 'bundleId' relates to log capture). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with extra insights but doesn't detract either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Starts capturing logs') and resource ('from a specified simulator'), with the specific outcome ('Returns a session ID') and default behavior ('By default, captures only structured logs'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'start_device_log_cap' by specifying 'simulator' rather than 'device', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start_device_log_cap' or 'launch_app_logs_sim', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a running simulator or app. It implies usage through context but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool builds but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only or destructive, permission requirements, side effects (e.g., generates artifacts), error handling, or output format. For a build 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses minimal words to convey the essential action. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (build operation with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the build produces, success/failure indicators, or behavioral context needed for effective use. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for missing operational guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples, no clarification on default behaviors). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting, though no extra value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Builds') and resource ('a Swift Package'), specifying the implementation method ('with swift build'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like swift_package_clean, swift_package_run, and swift_package_test by focusing on building rather than cleaning, running, or testing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other build tools in the sibling list (e.g., build_dev_proj, build_mac_proj).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling build tools (e.g., build_dev_proj, build_mac_proj, build_sim_id_proj), there's no indication of when swift_package_build is appropriate versus project/workspace-specific builds, or how it relates to swift_package_run for execution. Usage context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Cleans' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what exactly gets deleted, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the expected outcome looks like. For a tool that appears to delete build artifacts, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that performs cleanup operations (potentially destructive) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'build artifacts and derived data' specifically includes, whether the operation is safe to run, what confirmation (if any) is provided, or what happens on success/failure. Given the context of sibling tools that perform similar operations on different targets, more differentiation would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'packagePath' clearly documented as 'Path to the Swift package root (Required)'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the complete schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Cleans') and target ('Swift Package build artifacts and derived data'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clean_proj' or 'clean_ws', which appear to clean different types of projects/workspaces rather than Swift packages specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple cleaning tools (clean_proj, clean_ws) and Swift package tools (swift_package_build, swift_package_test, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific Swift package cleaning tool is appropriate versus other cleaning or Swift package operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool runs tests and parses output, but lacks details on critical behaviors: it does not specify if it requires a pre-booted simulator, whether it builds the project first, what happens on test failure, or if it has side effects like modifying project files. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Runs tests') and includes key technical details ('using xcodebuild test and parses xcresult output'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the test execution flow, output format, error handling, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., boot_sim). For a testing tool with potential side effects, more context is needed to ensure reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all 8 parameters. The description does not add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description provides no extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Runs tests for a project on a simulator by name using xcodebuild test and parses xcresult output.' It specifies the verb ('Runs tests'), resource ('project'), and method ('xcodebuild test'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like test_sim_name_ws or test_sim_id_proj, which reduces it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as having a simulator booted or a project built, or compare it to similar tools like test_sim_name_ws or test_sim_id_proj, leaving the agent with insufficient context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 tool builds an app, implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, if it's destructive (e.g., overwrites existing builds), execution time, rate limits, or output format. The example adds some context but lacks operational details. For a build tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by an 'IMPORTANT' note and an example. There's no unnecessary verbosity, and each sentence adds value. However, the example could be more concise (e.g., by omitting the function wrapper), and the structure could better separate usage guidelines from examples.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a build tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, error handling), output format, and detailed usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for missing annotations or output details, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it explicitly names the two required parameters (workspacePath and scheme) and provides an example, but doesn't explain parameter interactions, defaults, or constraints not in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description meets but doesn't exceed this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Builds an app from a workspace for a physical Apple device.' It specifies the verb ('Builds'), resource ('app from a workspace'), and target ('physical Apple device'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_sim_id_ws (for simulators) or build_mac_ws (for macOS). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from build_dev_proj (which builds from a project file instead of a workspace), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'for a physical Apple device' and listing required parameters, which helps distinguish it from simulator or macOS build tools. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_dev_proj or build_run_mac_ws, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The 'IMPORTANT' note about required parameters is helpful but not a full usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Builds and runs an app,' which implies a complex, potentially time-consuming operation with side effects, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like whether it requires specific permissions, what happens on failure, if it modifies the workspace, or any performance characteristics. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and requirements, and one providing an example. It's front-loaded with key information and avoids unnecessary details, though the example could be slightly more concise. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a build-and-run operation with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), output format, or how it differs from sibling tools. The example helps but doesn't compensate for the missing contextual depth needed for such a tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by emphasizing the three required parameters (workspacePath, scheme, simulatorName) and providing an example, but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Builds and runs an app') and specifies the resource ('from a workspace on a simulator specified by name'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'build_run_sim_name_proj' (which likely uses a project instead of workspace) or 'launch_app_sim_name_ws' (which likely launches without building), leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the required parameters (workspacePath, scheme, simulatorName) and provides an example, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_run_sim_id_ws' (which uses simulator ID instead of name) or 'build_dev_ws' (which builds without running). Guidelines are implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'Builds an app' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what happens on failure, if it requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. The example adds some context but doesn't cover these critical aspects, making it insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and requirements, and another providing an example. It's front-loaded with key information and avoids unnecessary details, though the example could be slightly more concise by not repeating the tool name. Overall, it's efficient with little waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a build tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and required parameters but lacks crucial behavioral context (e.g., what the build does, error handling, output format) and doesn't leverage the rich schema to explain parameter nuances. For a tool of this nature, more guidance is needed to help the agent use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema itself. The description adds minimal value by listing the three required parameters in the text and providing an example, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions, defaults, or semantics beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Builds an app') and the resource ('from a project file for a specific simulator by UUID'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'build_sim_name_proj' or 'build_dev_proj', which might target different simulators or devices, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific variant.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying required parameters (projectPath, scheme, simulatorId) and providing an example, which gives some context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'build_sim_name_proj' (which uses simulator name instead of UUID) or 'build_run_sim_id_proj' (which might also run the app), leaving the agent to infer based on parameter names and sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 tool 'Builds an app', implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., whether it modifies files, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure). The example adds some context but doesn't compensate for the lack of critical behavioral information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and requirements, and one providing an example. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, and the example is useful without being verbose. However, the example could be slightly trimmed (e.g., by omitting the function call syntax) for optimal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a build tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., what the build does, error handling, or output format), doesn't differentiate from siblings, and provides minimal guidance. The example helps but doesn't compensate for these gaps, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing the three required parameters in text, but this doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or edge cases). 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Builds an app') and the target ('from a project file for a specific simulator by name'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'build_sim_id_proj' or 'build_sim_name_ws', which target different identifiers or workspace files, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some implied usage context by listing required parameters (projectPath, scheme, simulatorName) and giving an example, which suggests when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'build_sim_id_proj' (which uses a simulator ID instead of name) or 'build_sim_name_ws' (which uses a workspace), leaving the agent to infer from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 tool 'Builds an app,' implying a mutation or creation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a destructive action (e.g., overwriting previous builds), permission requirements, error handling, or output format. The example adds some context but doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by important requirements and an example. Both sentences earn their place: the first defines the tool, and the second provides practical guidance. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating requirements from the example with a line break).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a build tool with 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., what happens during the build, error cases), output format, and how it differs from sibling tools. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for the missing context, making it inadequate for a tool of this nature.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all 8 parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'Build configuration (Debug, Release, etc.)' for 'configuration'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing the three required parameters and providing an example that shows usage syntax. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default values, or edge cases, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Builds an app from a workspace for a specific simulator by name.' This specifies the verb ('Builds'), resource ('app'), and context ('from a workspace for a specific simulator by name'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'build_sim_name_proj' or 'build_run_sim_name_ws', which might have similar purposes but different approaches or additional functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance by listing required parameters ('Requires workspacePath, scheme, and simulatorName') and including an example, which helps clarify when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'build_sim_name_proj' (which might use a project instead of a workspace) or 'build_run_sim_name_ws' (which might also run the app). No exclusions or clear alternatives are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'cleans' (implying destructive deletion) and mentions a required parameter, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as what exactly gets deleted, whether the operation is reversible, permission requirements, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with two sentences: one stating the purpose and requirement, and one providing an example. Every sentence adds value, though the example could be more concise. It's 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context about what 'cleans' entails (e.g., which files are removed, safety warnings), expected outcomes, or error conditions. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for the behavioral transparency gap in this case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 all six parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by emphasizing 'Requires projectPath' and providing an example, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('cleans') and target resources ('build products and intermediate files from a project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'clean_ws' (which likely cleans workspaces) and 'swift_package_clean' (which cleans Swift packages). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'clean_ws' or 'swift_package_clean', nor does it mention prerequisites beyond the required parameter. It lacks context about typical scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Gets' (implying read-only) and lists required parameters, but doesn't describe what happens on failure, whether it validates inputs beyond schema requirements, what format the returned path takes, or any performance/rate limit considerations. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by important requirements and an example. Both sentences earn their place: the first defines the tool's function, the second provides critical implementation details. However, the example could be more concise by omitting the function call wrapper and focusing on the parameter object.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (beyond 'app bundle path'), doesn't describe error conditions, and doesn't provide guidance on parameter interactions (e.g., how 'simulatorName' relates to 'simulatorId', or when to use 'workspacePath' vs 'projectPath'). Given the complexity and lack of structured output documentation, the description should do more.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the structured schema. The description adds minimal value beyond this by emphasizing four specific parameters as 'IMPORTANT: Requires' and providing an example. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Gets the app bundle path for a simulator by UUID using a project file.' It specifies the verb ('Gets'), resource ('app bundle path'), and key constraints ('by UUID', 'using a project file'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sim_app_path_name_proj' or 'get_sim_app_path_id_ws', which appear to serve similar purposes with different parameter requirements.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by listing required parameters and giving an example, which implies when to use it (when you have a project file and simulator UUID). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_sim_app_path_name_proj' (which uses simulator name instead of UUID) or 'get_sim_app_path_id_ws' (which uses workspace instead of project). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists simulators but doesn't describe return format, pagination, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks information about return values, error handling, and differentiation from sibling tools, which would be helpful given the context of many similar tools in this server.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 the single parameter 'enabled' with its type and description. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Lists') and resource ('available iOS simulators with their UUIDs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_devices' or 'open_sim', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific tool versus alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_devices' or 'open_sim'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action is a 'set' operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., if it requires simulator to be running, permissions needed, or error handling). It lacks details on what happens if the simulator isn't available or if the change is persistent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Sets', 'appearance mode', 'iOS simulator', 'dark/light') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 2 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on behavioral aspects (e.g., dependencies, effects) and usage guidelines. For a mutation tool with no annotations, more detail would improve completeness, but it's not entirely incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (mode with enum values, simulatorUuid with source). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sets') and the target ('appearance mode of an iOS simulator'), with specific modes mentioned ('dark/light'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'boot_sim' or 'list_sims' by focusing on appearance configuration rather than lifecycle or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential appearance-related tools (none in the list), so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a booted simulator), exclusions, or related tools for checking appearance. The context is implied through the action, but no explicit usage instructions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Lists'), but doesn't describe what information is returned, format of output, whether it's a snapshot or live view, permissions required, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'lists' means in practice - what information is returned, in what format, or how the agent should interpret the results. For a tool that presumably returns process information, more context about the output would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist, which is correct for this case. Baseline would be 4 for 0 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Lists') and target ('currently running Swift Package processes'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'swift_package_build' or 'swift_package_run', which also relate to Swift Package processes but perform different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for Swift Package operations (build, clean, run, stop, test), but the description doesn't indicate when listing processes is appropriate versus those other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies execution but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether it runs synchronously or asynchronously (hinted by 'background' parameter but not explained), potential side effects (e.g., process creation, resource usage), error handling, or output format (stdout/stderr capture). For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It uses precise terminology ('executable target', 'Swift Package', 'swift run') and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, execution-focused) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action but misses behavioral context (e.g., how output is returned, error scenarios) and usage guidance. Without annotations, it should provide more detail on execution behavior to fully inform the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all 7 parameters (e.g., 'arguments' as command-line args, 'background' for async execution). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as examples or usage tips. According to guidelines, high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, and the description doesn't enhance this further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Runs') and target ('executable target from a Swift Package'), using the specific command 'swift run'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like swift_package_build or swift_package_test by focusing on execution rather than building, cleaning, or testing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other run-related tools (e.g., launch_app_sim), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid Swift package), compare to sibling tools like swift_package_build (for building without running) or launch_app_sim (for running on simulators), or specify use cases (e.g., testing executables locally). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'parses xcresult output,' which adds some context about output processing. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only or destructive operation (testing typically runs code but doesn't modify source), potential side effects (e.g., generating test artifacts), error handling, or performance considerations (e.g., test execution time).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Runs tests') and includes key implementation details ('using xcodebuild test and parses xcresult output'). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (testing with 6 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and output parsing but misses behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling) and doesn't leverage the rich sibling tool context to clarify its niche. It's complete enough to understand what it does but not how it behaves or when to choose it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'Build configuration (Debug, Release, etc.)' for 'configuration'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Runs tests for a macOS project using xcodebuild test and parses xcresult output.' It specifies the verb ('Runs tests'), resource ('macOS project'), and method ('xcodebuild test'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like test_macos_ws or test_device_proj, which appear to serve similar testing functions for different targets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., Xcode installation), compare it to sibling testing tools (like test_macos_ws or test_device_proj), or indicate scenarios where it's preferred over other testing methods. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'IMPORTANT: Requires projectPath and scheme' and gives an example, which adds some behavioral context (e.g., required inputs). However, it lacks details on what the build does (e.g., compiles code, produces an artifact), potential side effects (e.g., modifies files, requires Xcode), or error handling, which are critical for a build tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one with requirements and an example. It's front-loaded with the core action and device target, and the example adds practical value without unnecessary verbosity. However, the example could be slightly more informative (e.g., clarifying parameter types).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a build tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and required inputs but lacks details on behavior (e.g., what happens during the build, output location), error cases, or how it differs from siblings. This leaves gaps for an agent to use it effectively in varied contexts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing that 'projectPath' and 'scheme' are required, but it doesn't provide additional semantics like usage examples for other parameters (e.g., 'configuration' options). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Builds an app') and target ('from a project file for a physical Apple device'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'build_dev_ws' or 'build_mac_proj', which likely target different build environments or project types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying 'for a physical Apple device' and listing required parameters, which provides some context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_sim_id_proj' (for simulators) or 'build_mac_proj' (for macOS), leaving the agent to infer from the 'device' keyword.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'builds and runs' an app, implying a mutation/write operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a long-running process, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting previous builds), authentication needs, error handling, or output format. The example helps but doesn't compensate for the lack of transparency in a complex 8-parameter tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing requirements and an example. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, and the example adds practical value without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence earns its place, though the structure could be slightly improved by separating requirements more clearly from the example.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and required parameters but lacks details on behavioral aspects, output expectations, and differentiation from siblings. For a build-and-run tool with significant parameters and no structured safety hints, the description should provide more context about execution flow, success/failure indicators, and environmental prerequisites to be fully adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing the three required parameters in the text and providing an example that shows their usage. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions, dependencies, or provide additional context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Builds and runs an app from a workspace on a simulator specified by UUID.' It specifies the verb ('builds and runs'), resource ('app from a workspace'), and target ('simulator specified by UUID'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'build_run_sim_name_ws' (which uses simulator name instead of UUID) or 'build_dev_ws' (which targets a device), leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by listing required parameters (workspacePath, scheme, simulatorId) and giving an example, which implies when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. 'build_run_sim_name_ws' for UUID-based vs. name-based simulator targeting, or vs. 'build_run_mac_ws' for macOS builds). The guidance is implied rather than explicit, lacking clear when/when-not directives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While it indicates this is an informational tool ('Provides comprehensive information'), it doesn't specify whether this operation has side effects, requires specific permissions, returns structured data, or has any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and provides specific details about what information is provided. Every word earns its place in this concise description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's informational nature and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It clearly states what information the tool provides but doesn't describe the format or structure of the returned information. For a diagnostic/information tool with no output schema, the description could benefit from more detail about the return format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, and the schema description explains it's a 'dummy parameter to satisfy MCP protocol.' The tool description doesn't mention parameters at all, which is appropriate since the single parameter is essentially a technical requirement rather than functional. With 0 required parameters and high schema coverage, the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Provides comprehensive information about the MCP server environment, available dependencies, and configuration status.' It uses specific verbs ('Provides comprehensive information') and identifies the resource ('MCP server environment, available dependencies, and configuration status'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'discover_tools' or 'describe_ui' which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'discover_tools' (which might list available tools) or 'describe_ui' (which might provide UI-related information). The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that 'appPath' is required and gives an example, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the app fails to launch, whether it runs in the background or foreground, or any system dependencies. The note about environment prefixes adds some context but not behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with three sentences: a clear purpose statement, an important requirement with example, and an environmental note. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The environmental note could be considered slightly extraneous but provides useful implementation context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool (launching applications) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter requirement but lacks information about what happens after launch, error conditions, or system requirements. The 100% schema coverage helps, but for a tool that interacts with the operating system, more behavioral context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds value by emphasizing that 'appPath' is required and providing an example format, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., explaining what constitutes a valid .app bundle path or how 'args' are processed).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Launches') and target ('a macOS application'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'launch_app_device' or 'launch_app_sim', which appear to launch applications on different platforms or environments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance by emphasizing that 'appPath' is required and giving an example, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'launch_app_device' or 'launch_app_sim'. The context is implied (macOS-specific launching) but not contrasted with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the requirement for 'projectPath' but lacks details on behavioral traits such as read-only vs. destructive nature, error handling, or output format. The example adds some context but doesn't fully compensate for the missing annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and requirement, and one giving an example. It's front-loaded with key information and avoids unnecessary details, though the example could be slightly more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (simple list operation) and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on output format or error conditions. With no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context to be fully adequate for agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by emphasizing 'Requires projectPath' and providing an example, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Lists' and the resource 'available schemes in the project file', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'list_schems_ws' (which likely lists schemes in a workspace file), missing full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage by stating 'Requires projectPath' and giving an example, which suggests when to use it (for .xcodeproj files). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'list_schems_ws', leaving guidance incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 ('Opens') but doesn't describe what 'Opens' entails (e.g., launches the app, brings it to foreground, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like starting a simulator session). This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters, making it easy to scan and understand immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks context. It doesn't explain what happens after opening (e.g., success indicators, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools), leaving the agent with incomplete information for effective use in a broader workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none to explain. A baseline of 4 is applied as it adequately handles the lack of parameters without unnecessary elaboration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Opens') and the target resource ('the iOS Simulator app'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'boot_sim' or 'launch_app_sim', which might have overlapping functionality in the simulator context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the simulator must be installed or running), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'boot_sim' for starting the simulator or 'launch_app_sim' for launching apps within it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'creates' a project, implying a write operation, but doesn't address permissions, side effects, error handling, or what happens if the output path exists. For a creation tool with 11 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key features without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex creation tool with 11 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'scaffold' entails beyond high-level features, doesn't describe the output structure or files created, and provides no behavioral context for a tool that likely modifies the filesystem.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 11 parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not providing additional value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('scaffold'), resource ('new iOS project'), and specific outcomes ('modern Xcode project with workspace structure, SPM package for features, and proper iOS configuration'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'scaffold_macos_project' by specifying iOS rather than macOS.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'scaffold_macos_project' or other project creation tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the requirement for 'projectPath and scheme' and implies a read-only operation ('Shows'), but lacks details on permissions, error handling, output format, or whether it's safe/destructive. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by important requirements and an example. The example is helpful but slightly verbose; every sentence earns its place, though minor trimming could improve conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., output format, error conditions) and doesn't differentiate from siblings. This is minimally viable but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by restating that these parameters are required and providing an example, but doesn't offer additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Shows build settings from a project file using xcodebuild.' It specifies the verb ('Shows'), resource ('build settings'), and method ('using xcodebuild'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from its sibling 'show_build_set_ws' (which likely shows workspace build settings). This omission prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance by stating 'IMPORTANT: Requires projectPath and scheme' and including an example, which helps clarify when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives (e.g., 'show_build_set_ws' for workspace-based settings), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'configurable timing' which hints at the duration/preDelay/postDelay parameters, but doesn't explain what a swipe actually does (e.g., UI interaction, gesture simulation), whether it requires specific simulator state, or what happens on execution. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with three short sentences that each add value: the core action, coordinate sourcing guidance, and timing capability. No wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does) comes first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's effect, return values, error conditions, or relationships to other tools beyond the single mention of describe_ui. For a UI interaction tool with many parameters, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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. It only vaguely references 'configurable timing' and coordinates, but doesn't explain what x1/y1/x2/y2 represent (start/end points), what delta means, what simulatorUuid is for, or units for timing parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Swipe from one point to another') and resource (UI coordinates), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'tap' or 'gesture' by specifying a swipe motion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'long_press' or 'touch'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'Use describe_ui for precise coordinates (don't guess from screenshots).' This gives practical guidance on parameter sourcing. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools like 'gesture' or 'touch'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool runs tests and parses xcresult output, but lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only or destructive operation (e.g., does it modify the workspace?), what permissions or prerequisites are needed, how errors are handled, or if there are rate limits. For a testing tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Runs tests') and includes essential implementation details without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), output format (what does the parsed xcresult look like?), and explicit differentiation from siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to fully understand how to use this tool effectively in practice.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'simulatorId' is described as 'UUID of the simulator to use (obtained from listSimulators)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying UUID usage for 'simulatorId'. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Runs tests'), target ('for a workspace on a simulator by UUID'), and implementation details ('using xcodebuild test and parses xcresult output'), making the purpose specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'test_sim_name_ws' or 'test_device_ws', which likely test by simulator name or on physical devices instead.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'by UUID' and referencing 'listSimulators' for obtaining the simulatorId, suggesting this tool is for testing on simulators identified by UUID. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'test_sim_name_ws' (for simulator name) or 'test_device_ws' (for physical devices), leaving the agent to infer from parameter names and sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the need for precise coordinates from 'describe_ui,' which adds useful context about dependencies, but it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, error handling, or performance implications. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance, with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a UI automation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter explanations, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke the tool correctly in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'coordinates' (hinting at x and y) and 'touch down/up events' (hinting at down and up), but it doesn't explain parameters like delay, simulatorUuid, or the exact usage of boolean flags. It adds minimal meaning beyond the bare schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs 'touch down/up events at specific coordinates,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'tap,' 'long_press,' or 'gesture,' which likely have overlapping functionality in the UI automation context, so it doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on when to use this tool by advising to 'Use describe_ui for precise coordinates (don't guess from screenshots),' which gives practical guidance. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tap' or 'gesture,' or any exclusions, so it lacks explicit alternative naming or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the workflow (find field, focus, then type), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like: whether this simulates actual keyboard input or just sets text value, error conditions, performance characteristics, or what happens if the text field isn't found. The description provides some context but leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise and well-structured: one sentence defines the tool's purpose and scope, the next provides clear usage instructions. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted space. It's front-loaded with the core functionality followed by practical guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a UI automation tool with 2 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It provides basic usage workflow but lacks critical information about parameter meanings, error handling, behavioral details, and expected outcomes. For a tool that interacts with simulators and UI elements, more context is needed for reliable agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'text' parameter implicitly but doesn't explain either parameter's purpose or constraints. It doesn't clarify what 'simulatorUuid' is or why it's required, nor does it provide guidance on the 'text' parameter beyond the vague 'supports US keyboard characters' statement. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Type text') and specifies the scope ('supports US keyboard characters'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'key_press' or 'key_sequence' that might also involve keyboard input, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific typing method.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool: 'Use describe_ui to find text field, tap to focus, then type.' This gives a practical workflow sequence. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools, so it's not a complete usage guide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the required parameter but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether booting is idempotent, what happens if the simulator is already running, whether this requires specific permissions, or what the expected outcome is. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The two sentences both earn their place - the first states what the tool does, the second provides critical usage guidance with a clear example. Zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information: what it does and the required parameter. However, it lacks context about what 'booting' entails operationally, what happens on success/failure, or how this relates to other simulator management tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description emphasizes that the parameter is mandatory and provides an example format, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema description ('UUID of the simulator to use (obtained from list_simulators)').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Boots') and target resource ('an iOS simulator'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'open_sim' or 'launch_app_sim', but the verb 'Boots' suggests starting/initializing the simulator itself rather than opening an interface or launching an app.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance by emphasizing the mandatory simulatorUuid parameter and referencing list_simulators as the source for this value. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'open_sim' or 'launch_app_sim', nor does it mention prerequisites or timing considerations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe behavioral traits like whether this is a long-running operation, what happens on failure, whether it modifies the project, or what output to expect. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing requirements and an example. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, though the example could be more concise. Every sentence earns its place by adding value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex build/run tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens during execution, what success/failure looks like, or what the tool returns. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context for this non-trivial operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it only lists the 3 required parameters without explaining their meaning or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Builds and runs an app'), resource ('from a project file'), and target ('on a simulator specified by name'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'build_run_sim_id_proj' (which uses simulator ID instead of name) and 'build_run_mac_proj' (which targets macOS instead of simulator).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying required parameters and providing an example, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_run_sim_id_proj' or 'build_run_sim_name_ws'. It mentions 'IMPORTANT: Requires...' which gives some guidance but doesn't provide comparative decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states that the tool creates files ('Creates a modern Xcode project'), it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on failure. For a file creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise - two sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose and key features. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the main action and follows with specific details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a file creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what gets returned (success/failure indicators, project path), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description alone is incomplete for safe tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 all 8 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation entirely from the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('scaffold a new macOS project from templates') and the resource ('macOS project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'scaffold_ios_project' and various build/run tools. It provides concrete details about what gets created (modern Xcode project with workspace structure, SPM package, macOS configuration).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare it to similar tools like 'scaffold_ios_project' or project discovery tools. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the required parameters but does not describe what 'Stops' entails (e.g., whether it force-quits the app, if it's reversible, error conditions, or side effects). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and follows with parameter requirements. It is appropriately sized with two sentences and no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes from prerequisites for better clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of stopping an app (a mutation operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error handling, or what constitutes success, which are crucial for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in a development or testing context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (simulatorUuid and bundleId) fully documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value by restating the requirements but does not provide additional context or meaning beyond what the schema already specifies, such as parameter interactions or examples of valid inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Stops') and target resource ('an app running in an iOS simulator'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like stop_app_device or stop_mac_app by specifying the iOS simulator context. It provides a verb+resource combination that is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning 'Requires simulatorUuid and bundleId,' which suggests prerequisites but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like stop_app_sim_name_ws or stop_app_device. There is no guidance on exclusions or specific scenarios, leaving usage somewhat inferred rather than clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool stops a session and returns logs, which implies a read operation with potential side effects (ending the session). However, it lacks details on permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, error handling, or what format/logs are returned. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and outcome. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and has no redundant or unnecessary information, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (stops a session and returns data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but misses details on return values, error conditions, and behavioral nuances. It relies on the schema for parameter info, leaving gaps in overall context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'logSessionId' documented as 'The session ID returned by start_device_log_cap.' The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Stops an active Apple device log capture session and returns the captured logs.' It specifies the verb ('stops'), resource ('Apple device log capture session'), and outcome ('returns the captured logs'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'stop_sim_log_cap', which appears to be a similar tool for simulators rather than physical devices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning 'active Apple device log capture session' and referencing 'start_device_log_cap' in the parameter description, suggesting this tool should be used after starting a session. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'stop_sim_log_cap' or other logging-related tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('stops') but doesn't describe what 'stop' means (force quit? graceful termination?), whether it requires admin permissions, potential side effects, or error behavior. The description provides basic operational context but lacks critical behavioral details for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise - two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and parameter options with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently communicates essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that performs a potentially destructive operation (stopping applications) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and parameter options, but lacks critical context about behavioral consequences, permissions, error handling, and return values that would be necessary for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the two identification methods, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage, exclusivity, or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('stops') and resource ('a running macOS application'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'stop_app_device' and 'stop_app_sim' by specifying macOS rather than device/simulator targets. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'swift_package_stop' which might also stop macOS processes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'macOS application' and providing two identification methods (app name or PID), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'stop_app_device' or 'stop_app_sim'. No guidance on prerequisites, permissions, or error conditions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'parses xcresult output' which adds some context about output processing, but doesn't describe what happens on test failure, whether tests run in parallel, timeout behavior, or any side effects. For a testing tool with 8 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that packs essential information: action, target, and implementation. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a testing tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the core purpose and implementation but lacks behavioral context (no annotations) and output details. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description alone doesn't provide enough context for confident tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation coming entirely from the schema, with no additional value from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Runs tests'), target resource ('for a workspace on a simulator by name'), and implementation details ('using xcodebuild test and parses xcresult output'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like test_sim_id_ws (which uses simulator ID) and test_macos_ws (which tests on macOS rather than simulator).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing Xcode installed), when to choose simulator-by-name vs simulator-by-ID tools, or any limitations. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'enables' workflows, implying a configuration action, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only analysis or a write operation that changes system state, what permissions are required, how it handles errors, or what the output looks like. For a tool with potential system impact, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the main function, the second clarifies scope and priorities. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (workflow discovery/enablement), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and its scope, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or output format. For a tool that likely modifies system state, more completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'natural language task description' which aligns with the 'task_description' parameter, but this is redundant. 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.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyzes a natural language task description and enables the most relevant development workflow.' It specifies the verb ('analyzes' and 'enables') and resource ('development workflow'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on workflow discovery rather than direct execution. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific sibling tools like 'discover_projs'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for analyzing natural language task descriptions to enable workflows. It mentions prioritization ('Prioritizes project/workspace workflows... and also supports task-based workflows... and Swift packages'), giving some guidance on its scope. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While it states the tool 'Gets' (implying read-only) and mentions requirements, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like what happens if the workspace/scheme doesn't exist, whether this performs a build operation, what the return format is, or any error conditions. The example helps but doesn't cover behavioral aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating purpose and context, one stating requirements with an example. The example is helpful but could be more concise. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and requirements but lacks information about return values, error conditions, and behavioral details that would be important for proper tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions workspacePath and scheme as required but doesn't provide additional semantic context about these parameters. The example shows usage but doesn't explain parameter meanings beyond what's in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('app bundle path for a macOS application'), and specifies the context ('using a workspace'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_mac_app_path_proj' by mentioning workspace. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other path-getting tools like 'get_device_app_path_ws' or 'get_sim_app_path_id_ws'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('using a workspace') and explicitly states prerequisites ('Requires workspacePath and scheme'). It doesn't mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, but the workspace context and requirement statement provide good guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool 'Gets' (implying read-only) and lists required parameters, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like what happens if the simulator isn't found, whether this requires specific permissions, error conditions, or what the return value looks like (path format, existence verification).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing requirements and an example. The IMPORTANT note is front-loaded, and the example is helpful. However, the second sentence is somewhat long and could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and required parameters well, but lacks behavioral context about errors, permissions, and return format. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, it should provide more guidance on what the tool actually returns and how it behaves.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing the 4 required parameters in the IMPORTANT note and providing an example with specific values. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't add significant semantic context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Gets'), resource ('app bundle path'), and scope ('for a simulator by name using a workspace'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_sim_app_path_id_proj' by specifying it uses a workspace and simulator name rather than ID or project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through the required parameters list and example, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_sim_app_path_name_proj' or 'get_sim_app_path_id_ws'. It provides some guidance through the example format but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool requires a workspacePath parameter, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe what 'schemes' are in this context, whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, or any error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing important usage information with an example. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The example is helpful but could be slightly more efficient. Overall, it's well-structured with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (listing schemes), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage for a single parameter, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter requirement but doesn't explain what 'schemes' are, what the output looks like, or how this differs from the sibling 'list_schems_proj'. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'workspacePath' well-documented as 'Path to the .xcworkspace file (Required)'. The description adds minimal value beyond this by reiterating that workspacePath is required and providing an example format, but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid workspace path or the expected format beyond the example. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Lists available schemes in the workspace.' It specifies the verb ('Lists') and resource ('available schemes in the workspace'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'list_schems_proj', which appears to list schemes in a project rather than workspace, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage guidance by stating 'IMPORTANT: Requires workspacePath' and giving an example, which implies when to use it (when you have a workspace path). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or provide alternatives (like using 'list_schems_proj' for projects instead of workspaces), so the guidance is implied rather than comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the tool captures screenshots for visual verification, implying a read-only operation that produces an image. However, it lacks details on permissions, output format (e.g., image type, size), side effects, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and well-structured: two sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and a key usage guideline. Every word serves a clear purpose, with no wasted text, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving screenshot capture with a required parameter), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It misses critical details like parameter explanation, output format, and behavioral constraints, making it inadequate for full agent understanding without external context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter (simulatorUuid) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic context. The description does not mention this parameter at all, failing to explain what simulatorUuid is, why it's required, or how it relates to screenshot capture. This leaves the parameter's meaning undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Captures screenshot for visual verification.' It specifies the action (captures) and resource (screenshot) with a clear goal (visual verification). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools beyond the one mentioned alternative (describe_ui), leaving some ambiguity about its uniqueness in the broader context of the toolset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'For UI coordinates, use describe_ui instead (don't determine coordinates from screenshots).' This clearly defines a specific exclusion case and names the alternative tool, helping the agent avoid misuse.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Runs tests' implies execution and potential side effects, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether tests run in a sandbox, if they modify the package, what happens on test failure, expected runtime, or output format. The description is minimal and lacks the context needed for safe, informed tool invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('Runs tests for a Swift Package') and includes the exact command ('swift test') for clarity. Every element earns its place, making it appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While the schema covers parameters well, the description lacks crucial context about what the tool actually does behaviorally, what output to expect, error conditions, or how it integrates with the testing workflow. Given the complexity and absence of structured behavioral hints, more descriptive context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. It doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, default behaviors beyond schema defaults, or usage examples that would enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Runs tests') and resource ('for a Swift Package') using the exact command 'swift test'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like swift_package_build, swift_package_run, and test_* tools by focusing exclusively on Swift Package testing rather than building, running, or testing other project types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (testing Swift Packages) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like test_device_proj or test_sim_id_proj. It differentiates from swift_package_build and swift_package_run by function, but lacks explicit guidance on when testing is preferred over other verification methods or which sibling tools are complementary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only covers basic behavior: it runs tests and parses output. It doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation (e.g., might modify simulator state), performance implications (e.g., time-intensive), error handling, or output format details. The mention of 'parses xcresult output' hints at structured results but lacks specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, dense sentence with zero waste: it front-loads the core action ('Runs tests'), specifies the target and method, and includes output handling. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, testing operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, performance), output details (what parsed results look like), or error conditions. For a testing tool with no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying dependencies (e.g., simulatorId must be from list_sims) or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Runs tests'), target resource ('for a project on a simulator'), method ('using xcodebuild test'), and output processing ('parses xcresult output'). It distinguishes from siblings like test_device_proj (device vs simulator) and test_sim_name_proj (UUID vs name).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning 'simulator by UUID' and 'xcodebuild test', suggesting it's for iOS/macOS testing on simulators. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like test_sim_name_proj (name-based) or test_device_proj (device-based), nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring a simulator UUID from list_sims.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the action ('perform gesture') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires a running simulator, what happens if the gesture fails, or if there are side effects. The description is minimal and doesn't provide context about execution environment or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('perform gesture') and lists all preset options without unnecessary words. Every element earns its place by specifying the target (iOS simulator) and available gestures.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the preset options and target environment, but lacks details on behavioral context, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent to infer usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (88%), so the baseline is 3. The description lists the preset gesture options, which matches the 'preset' parameter's enum values in the schema, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for other parameters like 'delta', 'duration', or 'simulatorUuid'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('perform') and resource ('gesture on iOS simulator') with specific scope ('using preset gestures'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'swipe' and 'tap' by specifying it uses preset gestures rather than custom coordinates or durations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (iOS simulator testing) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'swipe' or 'tap'. It lists the available preset gestures, which suggests usage for standardized gestures, but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the required parameters and includes an example, it doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (build settings format), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by important requirements and a concrete example. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with zero waste, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks information about return values, error handling, and behavioral characteristics that would be essential for an agent to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning that both parameters are required and providing an example with concrete values, but doesn't add significant semantic context beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Shows build settings') and resource ('from a workspace using xcodebuild'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'show_build_set_proj' (which likely shows build settings from a project rather than workspace), so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Requires workspacePath and scheme') and includes an example that demonstrates proper usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'show_build_set_proj' for project-based build settings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool starts a session and returns a session ID, which is useful. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's resource-intensive, how long logs are captured, or if there are rate limits, which are important for a tool that initiates ongoing processes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, followed by the mechanism and return value. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (initiates log capture with ongoing implications), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and return value but misses behavioral context like session management, error handling, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., 'stop_device_log_cap'), leaving gaps for an agent to infer usage safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Starts capturing logs'), target resource ('specified Apple device'), and mechanism ('by launching the app with console output'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'start_sim_log_cap' by specifying device types and from 'launch_app_device' by emphasizing log capture rather than just launching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when log capture is needed from Apple devices, with a prerequisite that deviceId should be 'obtained from list_devices' (mentioned in schema). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'start_sim_log_cap' for simulators or 'launch_app_device' for launching without logs, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool runs tests and parses output, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only vs. destructive, permission requirements, execution time, error handling, or what happens to existing test results. For a testing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks information about behavioral characteristics, output format, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. The 100% schema coverage helps, but more context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Runs tests'), target resource ('macOS workspace'), method ('using xcodebuild test'), and output processing ('parses xcresult output'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'test_macos_proj' by specifying workspace rather than project testing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (macOS workspace testing with xcodebuild) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'test_macos_proj' or 'test_sim_id_ws'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'Builds an app' (implying a write/mutation operation) and lists required parameters, but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, how long it takes, error handling, or output format. The example helps but doesn't cover behavioral traits adequately for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured: one sentence states the purpose, a second emphasizes requirements, and a third provides a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and key information (IMPORTANT) is front-loaded appropriately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool (building an app) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, build output path), error conditions, side effects, or dependencies (e.g., requires Xcode). The example helps but doesn't compensate for these gaps given the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by naming three required parameters in the text and providing an example with those parameters, but does not explain parameter interactions, defaults, or semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Builds an app'), resource ('from a workspace'), and target ('for a specific simulator by UUID'), distinguishing it from siblings like build_dev_ws (device builds) or build_mac_ws (macOS builds). It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states required parameters (workspacePath, scheme, simulatorId) and provides a concrete example, giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., build_sim_name_ws for simulator by name), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this requires the simulator to be running, what happens when pressing different button types (e.g., does 'lock' simulate locking the device?), whether there are side effects, or what the expected outcome is. The mention of 'duration' parameter hints at press duration control but isn't explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action and immediately follows with the specific supported options.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 insufficient. While it covers the button types well, it lacks information about required simulator state, behavioral outcomes, parameter interactions, and what (if anything) the tool returns. The complexity of simulating hardware button presses warrants more complete guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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. It provides valuable semantic context by enumerating the supported button types for the 'buttonType' parameter, which the schema only lists as enum values without explanation. However, it doesn't explain the 'duration' parameter's purpose or the 'simulatorUuid' parameter's role in targeting specific simulators.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Press hardware button') and the target resource ('iOS simulator'), with specific enumeration of supported button types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'key_press', 'tap', or 'gesture' by focusing on physical hardware buttons rather than software interactions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (iOS simulator hardware button pressing) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'home' button simulation via other methods or how it relates to sibling tools like 'lock' functionality. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the tool is for stopping an app, implying a destructive action, but does not clarify permissions needed, side effects (e.g., whether the app closes gracefully or is force-quit), error conditions, or what happens if the app isn't running. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a critical requirement in the second. Both sentences are essential—the first defines the tool's function, and the second prevents misuse—with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, side effects), prerequisites (e.g., simulator must be running), and expected outcomes, leaving gaps that could lead to incorrect usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal value by emphasizing that both parameters are required, but does not provide additional context beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., format examples or interdependencies).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Stops'), target resource ('an app running in an iOS simulator'), and key constraint ('by simulator name'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'stop_app_sim' (which likely uses a different identifier) and 'stop_app_device' (which targets physical devices).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('by simulator name') and provides a mandatory requirement ('You MUST provide both parameters'), but does not specify when not to use it or name alternative tools for different scenarios (e.g., stopping by simulator ID or on a device).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it runs tests using xcodebuild test, parses xcresult output, and works on physical devices. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, error handling, side effects, or what the output looks like (no output schema). The 'IMPORTANT' note about required parameters is helpful but basic.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence highlights required parameters with 'IMPORTANT', which is useful. However, the device list in parentheses could be slightly verbose, and the structure could be more streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the what (runs tests on physical devices) and key requirements, but lacks details on output format, error conditions, performance implications, or how it differs behaviorally from similar tools. Given the complexity, it should do more to compensate for missing structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing that projectPath, scheme, and deviceId are required, but doesn't provide additional semantic context like parameter interactions or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Runs tests', 'parses xcresult output') and resources ('Apple project', 'physical device'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it's for physical devices (not simulators) and uses xcodebuild test, unlike other test tools like test_sim_id_proj or test_macos_proj.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'physical device' and mentioning required parameters, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like test_sim_id_proj or test_device_ws. It mentions deviceId must be 'obtained from list_devices' (in schema), providing some prerequisite guidance, but lacks clear when/when-not directives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions required parameters, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (app bundle path format), potential errors, or side effects. The example shows usage but lacks behavioral context like whether this is a read-only operation or has any system impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by critical requirements, and ends with a concrete example. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with zero waste, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and requirements. However, it lacks information about return values (critical since no output schema exists) and behavioral traits like whether this is a read operation or has side effects, leaving gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing the 4 required parameters in the IMPORTANT note, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about how parameters interact or affect the result.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Gets the app bundle path'), target resource ('for a simulator by name'), and method ('using a project file'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_sim_app_path_id_proj' (which uses simulator ID) and 'get_sim_app_path_name_ws' (which uses workspace).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states 'IMPORTANT: Requires projectPath, scheme, platform, and simulatorName,' providing clear prerequisites. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_sim_app_path_name_ws' (workspace-based) or 'get_sim_app_path_id_proj' (ID-based), leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is an installation but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing apps, error handling, or side effects. This is a mutation tool with significant behavioral gaps in disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter requirements. Every word contributes essential information with zero waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or return values. For a mutation tool with 2 parameters, it is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in understanding full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal value by naming the parameters and hinting at 'list_devices' for deviceId, but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema. With 0 parameters needing extra explanation, baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Installs') and the target ('an app on a physical Apple device'), specifying the exact device types (iPhone, iPad, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling 'install_app_sim' by explicitly mentioning physical devices versus simulators.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning required parameters (deviceId and appPath) and referencing 'list_devices' for obtaining deviceId, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'install_app_sim' or provide exclusions. Guidance is present but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Launches') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if the app must be installed first, what happens if the app is already running, error conditions, or the expected response format. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste: the first sentence states the purpose and scope, and the second specifies required parameters. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place by adding essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation tool with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, error handling) and output information. It meets minimum viability but doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('deviceId' and 'bundleId') well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'deviceId' is described as 'UDID of the device (obtained from list_devices)'). The description mentions these parameters but adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying their necessity. 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Launches an app'), the target resource ('on a physical Apple device'), and enumerates the supported device types (iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, Apple TV, Apple Vision Pro). It distinguishes from siblings like 'launch_app_sim' (for simulators) and 'launch_mac_app' (for Mac apps) by specifying physical devices.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (launching apps on physical Apple devices) and mentions prerequisites ('Requires deviceId and bundleId'), with 'deviceId' explicitly linked to 'list_devices'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for simulators or Mac apps) or name alternative tools like 'launch_app_sim', though the context is implied by specifying physical devices.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is 'Stops' (implying a destructive/mutative operation) and lists required parameters, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permission requirements, side effects (e.g., app termination), error conditions, or what happens if the app is already stopped.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, followed by device scope and parameter requirements in a single, efficient sentence. Every word serves a clear purpose with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate in stating what it does and required parameters, but lacks completeness regarding behavioral details (e.g., confirmation of stop, error handling) and does not explain return values or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the parameters are required but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already documents.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Stops') and target resource ('an app running on a physical Apple device'), listing all supported device types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'stop_app_sim' by specifying 'physical Apple device' versus simulator.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (stopping apps on physical devices) and mentions prerequisites ('Requires deviceId and processId'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'stop_app_sim' for simulators.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it indicates this is a destructive operation (stopping a process), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the PID is invalid, whether the stop is graceful or forceful, or any error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the tool's purpose and relationship to swift_package_run, but lacks details about behavioral implications, error handling, or what constitutes successful execution. Given the complexity (stopping processes) and absence of structured safety information, it should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'pid' clearly documented in the schema as 'Process ID (PID) of the running executable'. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Stops') and resource ('a running Swift Package executable'), and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling tool 'swift_package_run' by mentioning that it stops executables started with that tool. This provides precise differentiation from other tools in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to stop a running Swift Package executable started with swift_package_run'), which implicitly suggests an alternative (using swift_package_run to start it). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention other potential alternatives among siblings like 'stop_app_device' or 'stop_mac_app'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Supports optional timing delays' which adds useful context about pre/post delay parameters. However, it doesn't describe what happens after the tap (e.g., UI response, error conditions, or whether this is a destructive action), leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with three clear sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: stating the action, providing usage guidance, and mentioning optional features. No wasted words, and the most critical information (what the tool does) comes first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but has significant gaps. It explains the core action and how to get coordinates, but doesn't cover parameter details fully, behavioral outcomes, or error conditions. Given the complexity, it's minimally complete but could be more comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for all 5 parameters, the description adds some value by mentioning 'coordinates' (mapping to x/y) and 'timing delays' (mapping to preDelay/postDelay). However, it doesn't explain the simulatorUuid parameter at all, leaving a critical parameter undocumented. The description partially compensates but doesn't fully address the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Tap at specific coordinates') and resource (coordinates), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'touch' or 'button', but the coordinate-based approach is specific enough for basic understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on how to obtain coordinates ('Use describe_ui to get precise element coordinates') and warns against alternatives ('don't guess from screenshots'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus similar sibling tools like 'touch' or 'button', which would be helpful for complete differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior as an extraction operation and specifies platform compatibility, but does not mention potential errors (e.g., invalid paths), permissions needed, or output format. It adds some context but leaves behavioral gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important usage note and an example. It is appropriately sized with two sentences, though the example could be integrated more seamlessly. Every sentence earns its place by adding clarity or guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameter requirement well, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or platform-specific nuances, which would be helpful for full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter 'appPath'. The description adds value by emphasizing the parameter's importance ('You MUST provide the appPath parameter') and providing an example, but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states. With 0 parameters beyond the single documented one, baseline is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the verb ('Extracts') and resource ('bundle identifier from an app bundle'), specifies the scope ('for any Apple platform'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_mac_bundle_id' by being platform-agnostic. It provides a clear, specific purpose that differentiates it from related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to extract a bundle ID from an app bundle, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_mac_bundle_id' or other sibling tools. It provides some context (platform scope) but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's purpose and requirements but doesn't describe what happens when invoked (e.g., whether it builds the app, returns a path string, throws errors for invalid inputs, or has any side effects). The 'IMPORTANT' note about required parameters is helpful but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and scope, and another providing requirements and an example. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first. The example could be slightly more concise, but overall there's minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about purpose and requirements. However, it doesn't explain what the tool returns (path format, error behavior) or provide richer behavioral context that would be helpful given the lack of annotations. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 all four parameters thoroughly. The description mentions two required parameters (workspacePath and scheme) and provides an example, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Gets the app bundle path') and target resource ('for a physical device application (iOS, watchOS, tvOS, visionOS) using a workspace'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_device_app_path_proj' by specifying the workspace-based approach, and from 'get_sim_app_path_*' tools by focusing on physical devices rather than simulators.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool (for physical device apps using a workspace) and mentions the two required parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like 'get_device_app_path_proj' for project-based approaches or 'get_sim_app_path_*' tools for simulators.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool uses 'xcodebuild test' and parses xcresult output, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention execution time, resource requirements, error handling, or what happens to the device during testing. For a complex 8-parameter tool with no annotations, more behavioral details would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and scope, while the second emphasizes required parameters. There's no wasted text, though the capitalization of 'IMPORTANT' could be considered slightly informal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and emphasizes required parameters, but doesn't describe output format, error conditions, or dependencies. For a testing tool that interacts with physical devices, more context about expected results and failure modes would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by emphasizing that workspacePath, scheme, and deviceId are 'IMPORTANT: Required', but this is redundant with the required field in the schema. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond what's in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Runs tests', 'parses xcresult output') and resources ('Apple workspace on a physical device'). It distinguishes from siblings like test_sim_id_ws by specifying physical devices rather than simulators, and from build tools by focusing on testing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (testing Apple workspaces on physical devices) and mentions deviceId must be 'obtained from list_devices' (a sibling tool). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like test_sim_id_ws for simulator testing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a build-and-run operation (implying mutation and execution) and mentions required parameters, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, output format, or side effects (e.g., whether it boots the simulator if not running). It adds some context but leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important requirements and a clear example. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second highlights key parameters, and the third provides a concrete usage example. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (10 parameters, build-and-run operation) and no annotations or output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and requirements but lacks details on what the tool returns, error conditions, or dependencies (e.g., simulator state). It's adequate for a simple invocation but insufficient for full understanding without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by naming three required parameters in the example but does not explain parameter interactions, defaults, or usage nuances beyond what the schema provides. The baseline is 3 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Builds and runs'), resource ('an app from a project file'), and target ('on a simulator specified by UUID'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'build_sim_id_proj' (which likely only builds) and 'build_run_sim_name_proj' (which uses a simulator name instead of UUID).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by specifying that it requires 'projectPath, scheme, and simulatorId' and includes an example. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_run_sim_name_proj' or 'build_dev_proj', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a simulator to be booted or available.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies this as a destructive operation ('Cleans') and specifies the underlying tool (xcodebuild), but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this operation is reversible, what specific files get removed, or potential side effects. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with three sentences: purpose statement, parameter guidance, and concrete example. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The example is particularly helpful for illustrating usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but lacks completeness. It doesn't describe what 'cleaning' entails specifically, what gets returned (if anything), error conditions, or dependencies. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for the missing behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing workspacePath as required and scheme/configuration as optional, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns beyond what's already documented in the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Cleans build products') and target resource ('for a specific workspace using xcodebuild'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like clean_proj (which likely cleans projects) and swift_package_clean (which cleans Swift packages). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool (for cleaning Xcode workspace build products) and explicitly states parameter requirements ('Requires workspacePath. Scheme/Configuration are optional'). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast when to use this versus alternatives like clean_proj or swift_package_clean, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions pressing a key but lacks critical behavioral details: it does not specify if this is a read-only or mutative operation (likely mutative), what happens if the simulator is not running, whether the key press is instantaneous or held, or any error conditions. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by helpful examples. Every sentence earns its place by providing actionable information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutative action with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and keycode examples but misses details on behavioral traits, parameter usage for 'duration' and 'simulatorUuid', and expected outcomes. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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. It explains the 'keyCode' parameter by providing common examples (e.g., 40=Return), which adds essential meaning not in the schema. However, it does not address 'duration' or 'simulatorUuid' parameters, leaving gaps in understanding their roles and formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Press a single key by keycode') and resource ('on the simulator'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'key_sequence' (multiple keys) and 'type_text' (text input). It provides concrete examples of keycodes, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'on the simulator' and listing common keycodes, which helps differentiate it from tools like 'button' or 'tap' for UI interactions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'key_sequence' or 'type_text', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a running simulator.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the need for precise coordinates and references another tool, it doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally (e.g., simulates a long press gesture on a simulator, requires the simulator to be running, might have timing constraints, or what happens if coordinates are invalid). For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, and the second provides critical usage guidance. There's zero waste, and the most important information (what the tool does and how to use it correctly) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description provides good guidance on coordinate sourcing but lacks information about the simulatorUuid parameter, behavioral details, or what happens after execution. It's adequate for basic usage but has clear gaps for a tool that interacts with simulators and requires multiple inputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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. It mentions 'specific coordinates' (mapping to x and y) and 'duration (ms)' (mapping to duration), providing semantic meaning for 3 of the 4 parameters. However, it doesn't explain the simulatorUuid parameter at all, leaving one parameter completely undocumented. The description adds value but doesn't fully compensate for the schema coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('long press') with precise resources ('at specific coordinates for given duration'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'tap', 'swipe', or 'gesture' which involve different interaction patterns. It explicitly mentions the coordinate requirement and duration parameter, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for precise coordinates') and when not to use it ('don't guess from screenshots'), directly naming an alternative tool ('describe_ui') for obtaining coordinates. This clearly distinguishes it from other input methods and sets prerequisites for effective usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose and required inputs, but lacks details about error conditions, performance characteristics, or what the returned path format looks like. The 'IMPORTANT' note about required parameters is helpful but doesn't cover broader behavioral aspects like authentication needs or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by an important requirement note, and ending with a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place - the first establishes what the tool does, the second clarifies critical inputs, and the third provides practical usage guidance. No wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by clearly explaining the tool's purpose, required inputs, and providing an example. However, it doesn't describe the return value format or potential error scenarios, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema. The description is reasonably complete but leaves some operational details unspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it emphasizes that projectPath and scheme are required (which is already clear from the required array) and provides a helpful example, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Gets the app bundle path') and resource ('for a physical device application using a project file'), with explicit platform scope ('iOS, watchOS, tvOS, visionOS'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_device_app_path_ws (which uses a workspace instead of project) and get_sim_app_path_* tools (which target simulators rather than physical devices).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('using a project file') and explicitly states required parameters ('Requires projectPath and scheme'), which helps guide usage. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives (like get_device_app_path_ws for workspace-based projects), though the sibling tool names provide some implicit differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the extraction action and includes an important operational note about the mandatory parameter, but doesn't describe what happens if the path is invalid, whether the tool modifies files, or what format the extracted identifier returns. It provides basic context but misses details about error conditions and output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with the core purpose first, followed by important requirement, example, and environmental note. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, though the environmental prefix note could be considered slightly extraneous. Overall, it's well-organized with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does and how to invoke it. However, it doesn't describe the return value format or potential error conditions, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema. It's minimally complete but could be more comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents the single 'appPath' parameter completely. The description reinforces this with the mandatory requirement and provides a concrete example, adding practical context beyond the schema's technical description. With only one parameter, this exceeds the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Extracts the bundle identifier') and target resource ('from a macOS app bundle (.app)'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_app_bundle_id' which lacks the macOS specificity. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for macOS .app bundles) and provides a mandatory parameter requirement ('You MUST provide the appPath parameter'), but it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Gets') and specifies required parameters, but doesn't describe what happens on failure, whether it validates inputs beyond requirements, or what format the returned path takes. The example helps but doesn't cover edge cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a crucial requirement note, and concludes with a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and its requirements. The example helps illustrate usage. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral context about error conditions or return format to achieve full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in the structured schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing the four required parameters in the IMPORTANT note, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Gets the app bundle path'), target resource ('for a simulator by UUID'), and context ('using a workspace'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_sim_app_path_id_proj' and 'get_sim_app_path_name_ws' by specifying the UUID identifier and workspace-based approach.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states 'IMPORTANT: Requires workspacePath, scheme, platform, and simulatorId', providing clear prerequisites for usage. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_sim_app_path_id_proj' (project-based) or 'get_sim_app_path_name_ws' (name-based), which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a write/mutation operation ('Installs'), but doesn't describe what happens if installation fails, whether it overwrites existing apps, or what permissions are required. The IMPORTANT warning about required parameters is helpful but doesn't fully cover behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by critical usage information and a concrete example. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate context. It covers the core purpose, parameter requirements, and includes a helpful example. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context about failure modes or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing both parameters are required and providing a concrete example, but doesn't explain parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Installs an app') and target resource ('in an iOS simulator'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'install_app_device' which targets physical devices. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool (for iOS simulators) and references 'list_simulators' as a prerequisite for obtaining the simulatorUuid. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. install_app_device for physical devices) or name specific alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool stops a session and returns logs, which implies it's a read operation that ends an active process. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., if logs are cleared after stopping), authentication needs, or rate limits, leaving behavioral gaps for a tool that interacts with simulators.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and outcome without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes the return value, making every part of the sentence earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (stopping a session and returning logs), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose and basic behavior, but could improve by detailing the log format or any prerequisites beyond the session ID. It's adequate for an agent to understand the tool's role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'logSessionId' fully documented in the schema as 'The session ID returned by start_sim_log_cap.' The description doesn't add any extra parameter details beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('stops') and resource ('an active simulator log capture session'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing 'start_sim_log_cap' as the complementary operation. It explicitly mentions returning captured logs, which adds valuable context beyond just stopping.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by referencing 'start_sim_log_cap' as the prerequisite, indicating this tool should be used after starting a session. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'stop_device_log_cap' for device logs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a mutation tool ('Sets'), but does not mention permission requirements, side effects, or error conditions. It provides some context about the 'clear' option resetting overrides, but lacks details on persistence, simulator state requirements, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential usage guidance for parameter values. There is zero wasted language or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does and parameter usage, but lacks information about required simulator states, error conditions, or what happens after execution. Given the complexity of modifying simulator status bars, more behavioral context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the 'clear' option and listing network types, but this largely repeats schema information. With 2 parameters and complete schema coverage, the baseline would be 3, but the description provides slight additional context about the 'clear' option's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Sets the data network indicator') and target resource ('in the iOS simulator status bar'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_simulator_location or set_sim_appearance. It uses precise verbs and identifies the exact UI component being modified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use specific values ('Use "clear" to reset all overrides'), but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. It implies usage for iOS simulator status bar management but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a launch operation (implying execution/mutation), specifies a critical prerequisite (app must be installed), and provides a typical workflow. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like app state changes or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized: it starts with the core purpose, highlights critical requirements, adds workflow context, and provides an example. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, though the example could be slightly more concise. There's no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering essential context: purpose, prerequisites, workflow, and parameter emphasis. It adequately compensates for the lack of structured behavioral annotations, though it doesn't describe return values or error behaviors, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description emphasizes that both simulatorUuid and bundleId are mandatory ('MUST provide both'), which reinforces the schema's required fields, but adds minimal additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Launches an app') and target resource ('in an iOS simulator'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like launch_app_device (for physical devices) or launch_mac_app (for macOS). It precisely defines the tool's scope without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: it specifies prerequisites ('You must install the app in the simulator before launching'), outlines the typical workflow ('build → install → launch'), and implicitly distinguishes it from alternatives by focusing on iOS simulators (unlike launch_app_device for devices).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a launch operation (implying execution/mutation rather than read-only), specifies required parameters, mentions prerequisites (installation needed), and provides a typical workflow. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the app is already running.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The three sentences each earn their place: stating the purpose, emphasizing requirements, and providing workflow context with an example. While efficient, the example syntax could be slightly more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, requirements, prerequisites, and workflow. However, it doesn't describe what happens on success (does it return process ID? just confirmation?), potential errors, or how it differs from similar launch tools. Given the context complexity, it's mostly complete but has minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it emphasizes that both simulatorName and bundleId are required (which is already in the required array) and provides an example. No additional semantic context is provided for the args parameter or parameter interactions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Launches an app'), target resource ('in an iOS simulator'), and method ('by simulator name'), distinguishing it from siblings like launch_app_device or launch_app_sim. It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('You MUST provide both the simulatorName and bundleId parameters') and provides clear prerequisites ('You must install the app in the simulator before launching'). It also outlines the typical workflow ('build → install → launch'), giving comprehensive guidance on proper usage context and sequencing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns a JSON tree with frame data, operates on visible elements, and is intended for automation accuracy. However, it lacks details on potential errors, performance implications, or data freshness, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and well-structured, using two sentences that front-load key information: the core functionality and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (UI hierarchy analysis) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and return format. However, it misses details on the parameter and potential edge cases (e.g., handling invisible elements), leaving minor gaps in completeness for automation scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description does not mention the 'simulatorUuid' parameter at all. While it implies context about simulators through usage guidance, it fails to explain what this parameter means or how to obtain it. With low schema coverage, the description does not compensate adequately, resulting in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Gets entire view hierarchy') and resources ('with precise frame coordinates for all visible elements'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'screenshot' by emphasizing coordinate accuracy over visual guessing, making its role in UI automation explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('before UI interactions or after layout changes') and when not to ('do NOT guess coordinates from screenshots'). It implicitly suggests alternatives like screenshot-based methods but clearly directs users to this tool for accurate automation, offering strong contextual usage rules.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists devices with UUIDs, names, and connection status, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like requiring specific permissions, network connectivity, or how results are formatted (e.g., pagination).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete, covering purpose, device types, returned data, and usage context. However, it could be slightly enhanced by mentioning the output format (e.g., list structure) or any prerequisites, though not strictly necessary given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Lists') and resource ('connected physical Apple devices'), specifies the device types (iPhone, iPad, etc.), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_sims' by focusing on physical devices rather than simulators. It provides a specific, unambiguous purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover physical devices for testing.' This provides clear context and distinguishes it from alternatives like 'list_sims' for simulators, making it easy for an agent to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![XcodeBuildMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/getsentry/XcodeBuildMCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/getsentry/XcodeBuildMCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![XcodeBuildMCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/getsentry/XcodeBuildMCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/getsentry/XcodeBuildMCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/getsentry/XcodeBuildMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server