xcode_last_errors

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond reading errors. It does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or depends on a prior xcodebuild. The agent lacks information about potential state changes or required conditions.

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 concise sentence in Chinese, which is appropriate for a simple tool. However, it omits necessary details like parameter semantics, making it too terse. It earns its place but sacrifices completeness.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description should still cover parameter meaning and usage context. The lack of annotations and parameter explanation leaves significant gaps. An agent would struggle to use the tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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 one parameter (limit) with default 20, but the description provides no explanation of this parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify what 'limit' controls (e.g., number of errors to retrieve). The agent cannot infer its meaning from the description alone.

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 states it reads error clues from the last xcodebuild output, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like xcode_build and xcode_test by focusing on error retrieval. However, the phrase '错误线索' (error clues) is somewhat vague, and the description is in Chinese, which may reduce clarity for non-Chinese speaking agents.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xcode_build or xcode_test. There is no indication of prerequisites, expected state (e.g., after a build), or when not to use it. The description purely states functionality without usage context.

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