build_run_mac_ws

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.