build_mac_ws

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.