Xcode-Studio-MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output behavior (build errors vs. success message with process ID) and the dual build-then-launch sequence. However, it omits operational details like whether the call blocks until completion, simulator boot behavior, or timeout characteristics.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states the action (build + launch), second states the return values. Every word earns its place, and critical information is front-loaded. Appropriate length for the tool's complexity.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates by explaining return values (build errors, process ID) and clarifying the compound operation. It adequately covers the tool's behavior, though it could improve by mentioning whether the simulator is auto-booted or if the operation is synchronous.

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, documenting all five parameters including defaults. The description mentions 'iOS Simulator' and 'build' which contextually anchors the parameters, but adds no specific syntax, format details, or parameter interdependencies beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the comprehensive schema.

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 explicitly states the dual action ('Build... and launch') and identifies the specific resources (Xcode project, iOS Simulator). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tool 'xcode_build' (build-only) and simulator interaction tools by specifying it both compiles and deploys the app.

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 explains what happens on success or failure (returns build errors or process ID), providing implicit usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'xcode_build' (e.g., 'use this when you need to test the app interactively') or prerequisites like requiring Xcode command line tools.

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