get_device_app_path_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 states the tool's purpose and requirements but doesn't describe what happens when invoked (e.g., whether it builds the app, returns a path string, throws errors for invalid inputs, or has any side effects). The 'IMPORTANT' note about required parameters is helpful but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of behavioral context.

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 scope, and another providing requirements and an example. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first. The example could be slightly more concise, but overall there's minimal waste.

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 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about purpose and requirements. However, it doesn't explain what the tool returns (path format, error behavior) or provide richer behavioral context that would be helpful given the lack of annotations. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate.

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 mentions two required parameters (workspacePath and scheme) and provides an example, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 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 specific action ('Gets the app bundle path') and target resource ('for a physical device application (iOS, watchOS, tvOS, visionOS) using a workspace'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_device_app_path_proj' by specifying the workspace-based approach, and from 'get_sim_app_path_*' tools by focusing on physical devices rather than simulators.

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 physical device apps using a workspace) and mentions the two required parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like 'get_device_app_path_proj' for project-based approaches or 'get_sim_app_path_*' tools for simulators.

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