Xcode-Studio-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the return structure (file, line, column, severity, message) since no output schema exists. However, it omits other critical behavioral traits: whether builds are destructive to previous artifacts, execution time expectations, or prerequisite requirements (Xcode installation).

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 consists of two efficient sentences with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Build...') followed by return value details. Every sentence earns its place.

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 4 parameters (1 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core function and return format. However, gaps remain in usage guidelines (vs. xcode_run) and behavioral transparency (side effects, idempotency), preventing a higher score.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the project_path semantics by mentioning 'project or workspace,' but adds no further syntax details, format examples, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides for the four parameters.

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 'Build[s] an Xcode project or workspace' with a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from simulator_* siblings (which interact with simulators) and xcode_run (execution vs. compilation), though it does not explicitly name siblings to differentiate.

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 by noting it returns diagnostics for errors/warnings, suggesting use for compilation verification. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with xcode_run (e.g., 'use this to compile before running').

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