build_warnings

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states that warnings are extracted and summarized but does not mention side effects, error handling (e.g., no build log), read-only nature, or whether it modifies any state. This is insufficient for an agent to predict tool behavior.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, being too terse sacrifices completeness for brevity, preventing a perfect score.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should describe the return format (e.g., list of warnings, counts, severity). It does not address edge cases like missing build logs or how multiple recent builds are handled. This leaves significant gaps for agent usage.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters (e.g., how projectPath or derivedDataPath affect the search). Baseline of 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 (extract and summarize) and resource (warnings from the most recent Xcode build log). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like xcode_build, xcode_test, xcode_clean, etc., which perform build, test, or cleaning actions rather than analyzing warnings.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like having a recent build log or running xcode_build first. The context of 'most recent' implies a build has occurred, but this is not stated explicitly.

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