build_sim_id_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 the tool 'Builds an app' (implying a write/mutation operation) and lists required parameters, but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, how long it takes, error handling, or output format. The example helps but doesn't cover behavioral traits adequately for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: one sentence states the purpose, a second emphasizes requirements, and a third provides a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and key information (IMPORTANT) is front-loaded appropriately.

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 mutation tool (building an app) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, build output path), error conditions, side effects, or dependencies (e.g., requires Xcode). The example helps but doesn't compensate for these gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 minimal value by naming three required parameters in the text and providing an example with those parameters, but does not explain parameter interactions, defaults, or semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 specific action ('Builds an app'), resource ('from a workspace'), and target ('for a specific simulator by UUID'), distinguishing it from siblings like build_dev_ws (device builds) or build_mac_ws (macOS builds). It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 explicitly states required parameters (workspacePath, scheme, simulatorId) and provides a concrete example, giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., build_sim_name_ws for simulator by name), which prevents a perfect score.

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