build_run_sim_id_proj

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.