get_sim_app_path_id_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 clearly indicates this is a read operation ('Gets') and specifies required parameters, but doesn't describe what happens on failure, whether it validates inputs beyond requirements, or what format the returned path takes. The example helps but doesn't cover edge cases.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a crucial requirement note, and concludes with a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and its requirements. The example helps illustrate usage. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more behavioral context about error conditions or return format to achieve full completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in the structured schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing the four required parameters in the IMPORTANT note, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns 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 specific action ('Gets the app bundle path'), target resource ('for a simulator by UUID'), and context ('using a workspace'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_sim_app_path_id_proj' and 'get_sim_app_path_name_ws' by specifying the UUID identifier and workspace-based approach.

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 explicitly states 'IMPORTANT: Requires workspacePath, scheme, platform, and simulatorId', providing clear prerequisites for usage. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_sim_app_path_id_proj' (project-based) or 'get_sim_app_path_name_ws' (name-based), which would be needed for a perfect score.

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