build_run_sim_name_proj

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe behavioral traits like whether this is a long-running operation, what happens on failure, whether it modifies the project, or what output to expect. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing requirements and an example. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, though the example could be more concise. Every sentence earns its place by adding value.

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 complex build/run tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens during execution, what success/failure looks like, or what the tool returns. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more behavioral context for this non-trivial operation.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it only lists the 3 required parameters without explaining their meaning or relationships. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Builds and runs an app'), resource ('from a project file'), and target ('on a simulator specified by name'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'build_run_sim_id_proj' (which uses simulator ID instead of name) and 'build_run_mac_proj' (which targets macOS instead of simulator).

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 required parameters and providing an example, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_run_sim_id_proj' or 'build_run_sim_name_ws'. It mentions 'IMPORTANT: Requires...' which gives some guidance but doesn't provide comparative decision criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.