XcodeBuildMCP

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 effectively communicates the tool's purpose and required inputs, but lacks details about error conditions, performance characteristics, or what the returned path format looks like. The 'IMPORTANT' note about required parameters is helpful but doesn't cover broader behavioral aspects like authentication needs or rate limits.

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 perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by an important requirement note, and ending with a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place - the first establishes what the tool does, the second clarifies critical inputs, and the third provides practical usage guidance. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by clearly explaining the tool's purpose, required inputs, and providing an example. However, it doesn't describe the return value format or potential error scenarios, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema. The description is reasonably complete but leaves some operational details unspecified.

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 four parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it emphasizes that projectPath and scheme are required (which is already clear from the required array) and provides a helpful example, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context beyond what's 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 ('Gets the app bundle path') and resource ('for a physical device application using a project file'), with explicit platform scope ('iOS, watchOS, tvOS, visionOS'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_device_app_path_ws (which uses a workspace instead of project) and get_sim_app_path_* tools (which target simulators rather than physical devices).

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 ('using a project file') and explicitly states required parameters ('Requires projectPath and scheme'), which helps guide usage. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives (like get_device_app_path_ws for workspace-based projects), though the sibling tool names provide some implicit differentiation.

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