test_macos_proj

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'parses xcresult output,' which adds some context about output processing. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only or destructive operation (testing typically runs code but doesn't modify source), potential side effects (e.g., generating test artifacts), error handling, or performance considerations (e.g., test execution time).

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Runs tests') and includes key implementation details ('using xcodebuild test and parses xcresult output'). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (testing with 6 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and output parsing but misses behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling) and doesn't leverage the rich sibling tool context to clarify its niche. It's complete enough to understand what it does but not how it behaves or when to choose it.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'Build configuration (Debug, Release, etc.)' for 'configuration'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Runs tests for a macOS project using xcodebuild test and parses xcresult output.' It specifies the verb ('Runs tests'), resource ('macOS project'), and method ('xcodebuild test'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like test_macos_ws or test_device_proj, which appear to serve similar testing functions for different targets.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., Xcode installation), compare it to sibling testing tools (like test_macos_ws or test_device_proj), or indicate scenarios where it's preferred over other testing methods. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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