get_sim_app_path_id_proj

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 mentions that the tool 'Gets' (implying read-only) and lists required parameters, but doesn't describe what happens on failure, whether it validates inputs beyond schema requirements, what format the returned path takes, or any performance/rate limit considerations. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by important requirements and an example. Both sentences earn their place: the first defines the tool's function, the second provides critical implementation details. However, the example could be more concise by omitting the function call wrapper and focusing on the parameter object.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (beyond 'app bundle path'), doesn't describe error conditions, and doesn't provide guidance on parameter interactions (e.g., how 'simulatorName' relates to 'simulatorId', or when to use 'workspacePath' vs 'projectPath'). Given the complexity and lack of structured output documentation, the description should do more.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the structured schema. The description adds minimal value beyond this by emphasizing four specific parameters as 'IMPORTANT: Requires' and providing an example. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context beyond what's already 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 tool's purpose: 'Gets the app bundle path for a simulator by UUID using a project file.' It specifies the verb ('Gets'), resource ('app bundle path'), and key constraints ('by UUID', 'using a project file'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sim_app_path_name_proj' or 'get_sim_app_path_id_ws', which appear to serve similar purposes with different parameter requirements.

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 some usage context by listing required parameters and giving an example, which implies when to use it (when you have a project file and simulator UUID). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_sim_app_path_name_proj' (which uses simulator name instead of UUID) or 'get_sim_app_path_id_ws' (which uses workspace instead of project). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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