show_build_set_ws

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 the required parameters and includes an example, it doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (build settings format), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by important requirements and a concrete example. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with zero waste, making it highly efficient and easy 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks information about return values, error handling, and behavioral characteristics that would be essential for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning that both parameters are required and providing an example with concrete values, but doesn't add significant semantic context beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Shows build settings') and resource ('from a workspace using xcodebuild'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'show_build_set_proj' (which likely shows build settings from a project rather than workspace), so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('Requires workspacePath and scheme') and includes an example that demonstrates proper usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'show_build_set_proj' for project-based build settings.

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