list_schems_proj

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the requirement for 'projectPath' but lacks details on behavioral traits such as read-only vs. destructive nature, error handling, or output format. The example adds some context but doesn't fully compensate for the missing annotation coverage.

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 the purpose and requirement, and one giving an example. It's front-loaded with key information and avoids unnecessary details, though the example could be slightly more concise.

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 tool's low complexity (simple list operation) and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on output format or error conditions. With no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context to be fully adequate for agent use.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by emphasizing 'Requires projectPath' and providing an example, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Lists' and the resource 'available schemes in the project file', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'list_schems_ws' (which likely lists schemes in a workspace file), missing full sibling distinction.

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 implied usage by stating 'Requires projectPath' and giving an example, which suggests when to use it (for .xcodeproj files). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like 'list_schems_ws', leaving guidance incomplete.

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