build_mac_proj

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.