test_macos_ws

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool runs tests and parses output, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only vs. destructive, permission requirements, execution time, error handling, or what happens to existing test results. For a testing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main action.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks information about behavioral characteristics, output format, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. The 100% schema coverage helps, but more context would be beneficial.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Runs tests'), target resource ('macOS workspace'), method ('using xcodebuild test'), and output processing ('parses xcresult output'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'test_macos_proj' by specifying workspace rather than project 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 implies usage context (macOS workspace testing with xcodebuild) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'test_macos_proj' or 'test_sim_id_ws'. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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