xcode_open_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as what happens if the file doesn't exist, whether it brings Xcode to front, or any side effects. The description is essentially a tautology of the name.

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 extremely concise at 5 words, with no wasted text. However, it may be too minimal, sacrificing clarity for brevity.

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 is simple with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to mention success/error behavior, prerequisites, or any additional context needed for correct 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?

Input schema coverage is 100% (both parameters described). The description adds no extra meaning beyond schema documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Open a file in Xcode' clearly states the action (open) and the resource (file) in the specific context of Xcode. It distinguishes from related tools like xcode_open_project by specifying 'file' versus project. However, it adds little beyond the tool name itself.

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 guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus siblings like xcode_open_project or xcode_get_projects. There is no context for prerequisites, behavior, or alternatives.

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