list_available_destinations

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. 'Lists' clearly indicates a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the optional scheme behavior is disclosed. It does not mention error conditions or output formats, but for a simple listing operation this is not a major 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, focused sentence that states what the tool does and its context. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core action, the scope (active project/workspace), and the optional scheme behavior, making it complete for effective selection and 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?

The schema covers the single parameter 100%, including its optional nature and default behavior ('Optional scheme to show destinations for. If not provided, uses the active scheme.'). The description does not add material meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and names the resource ('available build destinations') with the scope ('active Xcode project or workspace'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_available_schemes by targeting a different resource.

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 clearly identifies when to use the tool: to list build destinations for the active project or workspace. It also explains the scheme parameter's default behavior, which gives useful context, though it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state exclusion cases.

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