test_sim_name_ws

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'parses xcresult output' which adds some context about output processing, but doesn't describe what happens on test failure, whether tests run in parallel, timeout behavior, or any side effects. For a testing tool with 8 parameters, 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 packs essential information: action, target, and implementation. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation.

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?

For a testing tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the core purpose and implementation but lacks behavioral context (no annotations) and output details. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description alone doesn't provide enough context for confident tool selection and invocation.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation coming entirely from the schema, with no additional value from the description.

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 workspace on a simulator by name'), and implementation details ('using xcodebuild test and parses xcresult output'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like test_sim_id_ws (which uses simulator ID) and test_macos_ws (which tests on macOS rather than simulator).

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., needing Xcode installed), when to choose simulator-by-name vs simulator-by-ID tools, or any limitations. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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