inspect_xcode_project

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful operational context beyond those hints: it uses plutil, performs no xcodebuild or scripts, leaves unresolved settings provisional, and never registers identifiers. This gives an agent an accurate model of side effects and limitations beyond the structured hints.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core operation first, then the exclusions, then the behavioral caveat. Every sentence adds distinct value, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 six-parameter signature and absence of an output schema, the description is adequate for understanding scope and side effects, but it leaves gaps around parameter relationships (root vs project vs workspace) and what the inspection actually returns. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for an agent invoking the tool without additional schema help.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters, but it only mentions target, configuration, and platform. It does not clarify the semantics of root, project, or the mutually exclusive/co-occurring workspace parameter, which are necessary to invoke the tool correctly.

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 uses a specific verb ('statically inspect') tied to a precise resource (an explicit app/extension target, configuration, and platform) and names its method (Apple plutil). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by scoping to a single explicit target and explicitly ruling out xcodebuild, scripts, dependency resolution, and project edits.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: static inspection only, with no dynamic build behavior or project mutation. It explicitly states what it will not do, but it does not name specific sibling alternatives or provide an explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use decision rule.

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