get_mac_app_path_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. It mentions that the tool 'Gets the app bundle path' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it performs a build operation, requires Xcode installation, has side effects, or handles errors. The example hints at usage but lacks depth on how the tool behaves beyond the basic action.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes an example, making it efficient. However, the example could be more concise, and the 'IMPORTANT' tag adds slight redundancy since required parameters are already in the schema. Overall, it's well-structured with 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?

Given the complexity of a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., a file path string), potential errors, or dependencies like Xcode. For a tool that likely interacts with build systems, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that 'projectPath' and 'scheme' are required (which is already in the schema). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 verb ('Gets') and resource ('app bundle path for a macOS application'), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_mac_app_path_ws' or 'get_device_app_path_proj', which appear to serve similar purposes but with different inputs or contexts.

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 minimal guidance by stating 'Requires projectPath and scheme' and includes an example, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_mac_app_path_ws' or other path-retrieval tools in the sibling list. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite context is given.

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