show_build_set_proj

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 mentions the requirement for 'projectPath and scheme' and implies a read-only operation ('Shows'), but lacks details on permissions, error handling, output format, or whether it's safe/destructive. 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 sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by important requirements and an example. The example is helpful but slightly verbose; every sentence earns its place, though minor trimming could improve conciseness.

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 (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., output format, error conditions) and doesn't differentiate from siblings. This is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by restating that these parameters are required and providing an example, but doesn't offer additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 tool's purpose: 'Shows build settings from a project file using xcodebuild.' It specifies the verb ('Shows'), resource ('build settings'), and method ('using xcodebuild'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from its sibling 'show_build_set_ws' (which likely shows workspace build settings). This omission prevents a perfect 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 implied usage guidance by stating 'IMPORTANT: Requires projectPath and scheme' and including an example, which helps clarify when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives (e.g., 'show_build_set_ws' for workspace-based settings), leaving some ambiguity.

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