test_sim_name_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 the tool runs tests and parses output, but lacks details on critical behaviors: it does not specify if it requires a pre-booted simulator, whether it builds the project first, what happens on test failure, or if it has side effects like modifying project files. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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 technical details ('using xcodebuild test and parses xcresult output'). There is no wasted verbiage, 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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the test execution flow, output format, error handling, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., boot_sim). For a testing tool with potential side effects, more context is needed to ensure reliable 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all 8 parameters. The description does not add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description provides no extra value.

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 project on a simulator by name using xcodebuild test and parses xcresult output.' It specifies the verb ('Runs tests'), resource ('project'), and method ('xcodebuild test'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like test_sim_name_ws or test_sim_id_proj, which reduces it from a perfect score.

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 does not mention prerequisites, such as having a simulator booted or a project built, or compare it to similar tools like test_sim_name_ws or test_sim_id_proj, leaving the agent with insufficient context for selection.

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