build_sim_id_proj

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'Builds an app' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what happens on failure, if it requires specific permissions, or any rate limits. The example adds some context but doesn't cover these critical aspects, making it insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 another providing an example. It's front-loaded with key information and avoids unnecessary details, though the example could be slightly more concise by not repeating the tool name. Overall, it's efficient with little waste.

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 (a build tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and required parameters but lacks crucial behavioral context (e.g., what the build does, error handling, output format) and doesn't leverage the rich schema to explain parameter nuances. For a tool of this nature, more guidance is needed to help the agent use it effectively.

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%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the input schema itself. The description adds minimal value by listing the three required parameters in the text and providing an example, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions, defaults, or semantics beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline of 3 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 an app') and the resource ('from a project file for a specific simulator by UUID'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'build_sim_name_proj' or 'build_dev_proj', which might target different simulators or devices, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific variant.

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 by specifying required parameters (projectPath, scheme, simulatorId) and providing an example, which gives some context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'build_sim_name_proj' (which uses simulator name instead of UUID) or 'build_run_sim_id_proj' (which might also run the app), leaving the agent to infer based on parameter names and sibling tool names.

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