xcodebuild_show_destinations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states it lists destinations, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, or that it is a read-only operation. This lack of transparency is a 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 short and to the point, using a docstring-like format. It could be slightly more front-loaded by stating the core purpose upfront without the Args block, but overall it is concise.

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 (3 params, 0 required, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers the basics but leaves ambiguity about whether project or workspace is required, and the contradiction regarding scheme being required vs optional.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes each parameter (project, workspace, scheme) with brief explanations, but it claims scheme is required while the schema marks it as optional with a default null. This inconsistency reduces clarity.

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 it lists valid destinations for a project/workspace and scheme. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like xcodebuild_build or xcodebuild_test by focusing on destinations.

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 the tool does but does not provide guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., xcodebuild_list). There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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