build_sim_name_ws

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 mutation or creation operation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a destructive action (e.g., overwriting previous builds), permission requirements, error handling, or output format. The example adds some context but doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by important requirements and an example. Both sentences earn their place: the first defines the tool, and the second provides practical guidance. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating requirements from the example with a line break).

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 tool with 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., what happens during the build, error cases), output format, and how it differs from sibling tools. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for the missing context, making it inadequate for a tool of this nature.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all 8 parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'Build configuration (Debug, Release, etc.)' for 'configuration'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing the three required parameters and providing an example that shows usage syntax. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default values, or edge cases, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where 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 tool's purpose: 'Builds an app from a workspace for a specific simulator by name.' This specifies the verb ('Builds'), resource ('app'), and context ('from a workspace for a specific simulator by name'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'build_sim_name_proj' or 'build_run_sim_name_ws', which might have similar purposes but different approaches or additional functionality.

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 implied usage guidance by listing required parameters ('Requires workspacePath, scheme, and simulatorName') and including an example, which helps clarify when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'build_sim_name_proj' (which might use a project instead of a workspace) or 'build_run_sim_name_ws' (which might also run the app). No exclusions or clear alternatives are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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