xcode_build

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that builds can be time-consuming, that errors may be printed to stderr, that Xcode must be installed/in path, or that the tool may fail silently if scheme is missing. It does not describe what happens on success/failure.

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 quickly conveys the core purpose, making it easy to scan. The schema handles parameter details. However, it could be slightly expanded to cover behavioral notes 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?

For a complex build tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits return behavior (what output or status codes to expect), error scenarios, and integration notes (e.g., builds may require signing, dependencies). Sibling tools like xcode_test_without_building or xcode_build_settings suggest build context is nuanced.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which are already informative (e.g., describing default working directory issue for projectPath). For 8 parameters, the description could add ordering or common combinations.

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 states the tool builds an Xcode project or workspace with a specified scheme and configuration, which is a clear verb+resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like xcode_archive, xcode_test, and xcode_clean by implying this is the primary build step, though could explicitly contrast with those for more precision.

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 this tool versus alternatives like xcode_test (which includes build), xcode_clean, or spm_resolve. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., project must exist, schemes must be shared), nor exclude scenarios like building for testing only.

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