test_device_ws

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool uses 'xcodebuild test' and parses xcresult output, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention execution time, resource requirements, error handling, or what happens to the device during testing. For a complex 8-parameter tool with no annotations, more behavioral details would be helpful.

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. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and scope, while the second emphasizes required parameters. There's no wasted text, though the capitalization of 'IMPORTANT' could be considered slightly informal.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and emphasizes required parameters, but doesn't describe output format, error conditions, or dependencies. For a testing tool that interacts with physical devices, more context about expected results and failure modes would improve 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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by emphasizing that workspacePath, scheme, and deviceId are 'IMPORTANT: Required', but this is redundant with the required field in the schema. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond what's in the schema.

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 with specific verbs ('Runs tests', 'parses xcresult output') and resources ('Apple workspace on a physical device'). It distinguishes from siblings like test_sim_id_ws by specifying physical devices rather than simulators, and from build tools by focusing on testing.

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 for when to use this tool (testing Apple workspaces on physical devices) and mentions deviceId must be 'obtained from list_devices' (a sibling tool). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like test_sim_id_ws for simulator testing.

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