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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine operational fact beyond annotations: no automation session is needed, which materially affects how an agent can invoke it.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the key operational constraint. Nothing is wasted and no filler is present.

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 simple read-only listing tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does and the main invocation constraint. It omits any hint of what the process listing contains or how it is scoped, a minor gap.

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?

Only one parameter (udid) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no extra meaning about the udid beyond what the schema already provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List running processes') scoped to an iOS device, which is more precise than the sibling ios_diagnostics or ios_device_info. It does not explicitly contrast with those near-neighbors, but the action is unambiguous.

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 clause 'No automation session required' gives a real usage condition (callable without an active session), which is useful context among session-dependent iOS tools. However, it never states when to prefer this over related tools like ios_diagnostics or ios_crash_analytics.

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