build_run_sim_name_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 mentions that the tool 'Builds and runs an app,' which implies a complex, potentially time-consuming operation with side effects, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like whether it requires specific permissions, what happens on failure, if it modifies the workspace, or any performance characteristics. 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 requirements, and one providing an example. It's front-loaded with key information and avoids unnecessary details, though the example could be slightly more concise. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying usage.

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-and-run operation with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), output format, or how it differs from sibling tools. The example helps but doesn't compensate for the missing contextual depth needed for such a tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by emphasizing the three required parameters (workspacePath, scheme, simulatorName) and providing an example, but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high 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 an app') and specifies the resource ('from a workspace on a simulator specified by name'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'build_run_sim_name_proj' (which likely uses a project instead of workspace) or 'launch_app_sim_name_ws' (which likely launches without building), leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.

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 through the required parameters (workspacePath, scheme, simulatorName) and provides an example, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build_run_sim_id_ws' (which uses simulator ID instead of name) or 'build_dev_ws' (which builds without running). Guidelines are implied rather than explicit.

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