ios_get_build_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently states 'Read', signaling a non-mutating operation, which is the most critical safety trait. However, it does not disclose the output format, the meaning of a null project_path, or potential failure modes, leaving notable 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It starts with the core action and object, lists representative settings, and adds the Podfile scope at the end. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 simple read tool with one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose but omits the return structure, default behavior when project_path is null, and any error conditions. It is adequate for basic use but leaves an agent uncertain about what to expect from the tool's output.

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 provides no description for project_path (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explicitly explain the parameter's format, whether it should point to a directory or file, or what a null value does. The mention of 'from project.pbxproj' hints that the path targets an Xcode project, but this is insufficient to fully compensate for the absent schema documentation.

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 uses the verb 'Read' with a specific resource ('key Xcode build settings from project.pbxproj') and lists example fields (bundle ids, deployment target, team, signing style) plus the Podfile platform. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling write tools like ios_set_bundle_identifier and from ios_get_info_plist, which reads a different file.

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 conveys a clear context: use this tool to retrieve build settings and the Podfile platform, likely before modifying them. It implies but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, and it offers no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance. This is clear contextual guidance without explicit routing.

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