list_schems_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. It discloses that the tool requires a workspacePath parameter, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe what 'schemes' are in this context, whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, or any error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one providing important usage information with an example. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The example is helpful but could be slightly more efficient. Overall, it's well-structured with minimal waste.

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 moderate complexity (listing schemes), no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage for a single parameter, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameter requirement but doesn't explain what 'schemes' are, what the output looks like, or how this differs from the sibling 'list_schems_proj'. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'workspacePath' well-documented as 'Path to the .xcworkspace file (Required)'. The description adds minimal value beyond this by reiterating that workspacePath is required and providing an example format, but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid workspace path or the expected format beyond the example. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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: 'Lists available schemes in the workspace.' It specifies the verb ('Lists') and resource ('available schemes in the workspace'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'list_schems_proj', which appears to list schemes in a project rather than workspace, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 guidance by stating 'IMPORTANT: Requires workspacePath' and giving an example, which implies when to use it (when you have a workspace path). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or provide alternatives (like using 'list_schems_proj' for projects instead of workspaces), so the guidance is implied rather than comprehensive.

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