list_available_schemes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a read-only behavior via 'list' and scopes to the active project/workspace, but doesn't mention potential edge cases (e.g., no active project, private schemes omitted) or the exact return format. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essence without any filler. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It states the action, the resource, and the relevant context (active project/workspace), which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are required, and the schema confirms an empty object with no properties.

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 a specific action: lists all available schemes in the active Xcode project or workspace. The verb 'list' and resource 'schemes' are precise, and the scope (active project/workspace) distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_project_files or list_available_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 context 'in the active Xcode project or workspace' implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. The usage is understood from the purpose, but a more explicit note about using it to enumerate schemes before building or testing would earn a higher score.

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