test_sim_id_proj

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only covers basic behavior: it runs tests and parses output. It doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation (e.g., might modify simulator state), performance implications (e.g., time-intensive), error handling, or output format details. The mention of 'parses xcresult output' hints at structured results but lacks specifics.

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, dense sentence with zero waste: it front-loads the core action ('Runs tests'), specifies the target and method, and includes output handling. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an AI agent 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 complexity (8 parameters, testing operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, performance), output details (what parsed results look like), or error conditions. For a testing tool with no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying dependencies (e.g., simulatorId must be from list_sims) or usage examples. 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 specific action ('Runs tests'), target resource ('for a project on a simulator'), method ('using xcodebuild test'), and output processing ('parses xcresult output'). It distinguishes from siblings like test_device_proj (device vs simulator) and test_sim_name_proj (UUID vs name).

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 by mentioning 'simulator by UUID' and 'xcodebuild test', suggesting it's for iOS/macOS testing on simulators. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like test_sim_name_proj (name-based) or test_device_proj (device-based), nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring a simulator UUID from list_sims.

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