project_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the conditional behavior based on xcodegen presence and the output (path or manual instructions). However, it does not mention side effects like overwriting existing projects, permissions, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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 that front-loads the main purpose. It uses backticks for code elements and is fairly efficient. The conditional clause makes it slightly longer than ideal, but it remains clear and concise. No wasted words.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core behavioral differentiator but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., existing directory, invalid path, xcodegen failure). It also does not describe the return format beyond 'path' or 'manual instructions', leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning or context to the parameters; it only implicitly references them (name, template, platform, outputPath) without elaboration. The description's value lies in the behavioral conditional, not parameter semantics.

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 tool creates a new Xcode app project with source tree and XcodeGen project.yml. It uses specific verb 'create' and resource 'Xcode app project', and it is distinct from sibling tools (no other project creation tool exists among siblings).

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 provides clear context on when xcodegen is run automatically vs when manual steps are needed. While it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, the conditional logic is well explained and there are no competing project-creation tools among siblings, so the usage guidance is effective.

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