build_sim_name_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Builds an app', implying a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., whether it modifies files, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure). The example adds some context but doesn't compensate for the lack of critical behavioral information.

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 the core functionality, and the example is useful without being verbose. However, the example could be slightly trimmed (e.g., by omitting the function call syntax) for optimal conciseness.

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 lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., what the build does, error handling, or output format), doesn't differentiate from siblings, and provides minimal guidance. The example helps but doesn't compensate for these gaps, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing the three required parameters in text, but this doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or edge cases). Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 action ('Builds an app') and the target ('from a project file for a specific simulator by name'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'build_sim_id_proj' or 'build_sim_name_ws', which target different identifiers or workspace files, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 some implied usage context by listing required parameters (projectPath, scheme, simulatorName) and giving an example, which suggests when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'build_sim_id_proj' (which uses a simulator ID instead of name) or 'build_sim_name_ws' (which uses a workspace), leaving the agent to infer from tool names alone.

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