get_mac_app_path_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. While it states the tool 'Gets' (implying read-only) and mentions requirements, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like what happens if the workspace/scheme doesn't exist, whether this performs a build operation, what the return format is, or any error conditions. The example helps but doesn't cover behavioral aspects.

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 purpose and context, one stating requirements with an example. The example is helpful but could be more concise. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and requirements but lacks information about return values, error conditions, and behavioral details that would be important for proper tool invocation.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions workspacePath and scheme as required but doesn't provide additional semantic context about these parameters. The example shows usage but doesn't explain parameter meanings beyond what's in the schema.

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'), and specifies the context ('using a workspace'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_mac_app_path_proj' by mentioning workspace. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other path-getting tools like 'get_device_app_path_ws' or 'get_sim_app_path_id_ws'.

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 for when to use this tool ('using a workspace') and explicitly states prerequisites ('Requires workspacePath and scheme'). It doesn't mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, but the workspace context and requirement statement provide good guidance.

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