build_dev_ws

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.