get_sim_app_path_name_proj

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions required parameters, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (app bundle path format), potential errors, or side effects. The example shows usage but lacks behavioral context like whether this is a read-only operation or has any system impact.

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 critical requirements, and ends with a concrete example. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with zero waste, 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 9 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and requirements. However, it lacks information about return values (critical since no output schema exists) and behavioral traits like whether this is a read operation or has side effects, leaving gaps in 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by emphasizing the 4 required parameters in the IMPORTANT note, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about how parameters interact or affect the result.

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 name'), and method ('using a project file'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_sim_app_path_id_proj' (which uses simulator ID) and 'get_sim_app_path_name_ws' (which uses workspace).

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 projectPath, scheme, platform, and simulatorName,' providing clear prerequisites. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_sim_app_path_name_ws' (workspace-based) or 'get_sim_app_path_id_proj' (ID-based), leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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