clean_ws

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies this as a destructive operation ('Cleans') and specifies the underlying tool (xcodebuild), but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this operation is reversible, what specific files get removed, or potential side effects. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences: purpose statement, parameter guidance, and concrete example. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The example is particularly helpful for illustrating 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?

For a destructive operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but lacks completeness. It doesn't describe what 'cleaning' entails specifically, what gets returned (if anything), error conditions, or dependencies. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for the missing behavioral context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing workspacePath as required and scheme/configuration as optional, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns beyond what's already documented in the schema descriptions.

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 ('Cleans build products') and target resource ('for a specific workspace using xcodebuild'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like clean_proj (which likely cleans projects) and swift_package_clean (which cleans Swift packages). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (for cleaning Xcode workspace build products) and explicitly states parameter requirements ('Requires workspacePath. Scheme/Configuration are optional'). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast when to use this versus alternatives like clean_proj or swift_package_clean, 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.