xcode_archive

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. The minimal text 'Create an Xcode archive for distribution' reveals nothing about side effects (e.g., whether it modifies project files), execution time, required permissions, or output characteristics. An agent cannot anticipate the tool's runtime 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, concise sentence that is easily readable and front-loaded. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices informative content; a slightly longer description could add crucial context without becoming verbose.

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?

Xcode archiving is a complex, multi-step process. The description omits any explanation of what an archive is, what 'for distribution' entails, how the tool interacts with Xcode projects or signing, or what the output looks like. With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse to be considered complete.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., absolute path for archivePath, default Release configuration, timeout range). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 'Create an Xcode archive for distribution' clearly specifies the verb (Create), resource (Xcode archive), and context (for distribution). This distinguishes it from siblings like xcode_build (which only builds) and xcode_export (which exports an already-created archive). The purpose is clear and actionable.

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 no guidance on when to use archiving vs. building or exporting, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., a valid scheme, signing requirements) or alternatives among the many sibling tools. An agent has no basis to decide if this tool is appropriate for a given task.

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