xcode_open_project

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

The description lacks any detail about side effects, prerequisites (e.g., Xcode must be running), or what 'open' actually does (e.g., loads into IDE, sets as active workspace). With no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 without wasted words. However, slight expansion for behavioral context would improve it without harming conciseness.

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?

The description covers the basic action but omits return value information and side effects. For a simple open operation, it is minimally complete but would benefit from stating that the tool has no return or what happens upon success.

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 already provides a clear description for the single parameter (path). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Open' and the resource 'Xcode project or workspace', directly matching the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings like xcode_open_file and xcode_close_project by specifying the resource type.

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 (e.g., xcode_get_projects, xcode_set_active_scheme). The agent has no context to decide between opening a project vs. getting or building it.

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