test_sim_id_ws

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 the tool runs tests and parses xcresult output, but lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only or destructive operation (e.g., does it modify the workspace?), what permissions or prerequisites are needed, how errors are handled, or if there are rate limits. For a testing tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Runs tests') and includes essential implementation details without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), output format (what does the parsed xcresult look like?), and explicit differentiation from siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to fully understand how to use this tool effectively in practice.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'simulatorId' is described as 'UUID of the simulator to use (obtained from listSimulators)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying UUID usage for 'simulatorId'. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 ('Runs tests'), target ('for a workspace on a simulator by UUID'), and implementation details ('using xcodebuild test and parses xcresult output'), making the purpose specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'test_sim_name_ws' or 'test_device_ws', which likely test by simulator name or on physical devices instead.

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 specifying 'by UUID' and referencing 'listSimulators' for obtaining the simulatorId, suggesting this tool is for testing on simulators identified by UUID. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'test_sim_name_ws' (for simulator name) or 'test_device_ws' (for physical devices), leaving the agent to infer from parameter names and sibling tool names.

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