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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the session requirement, which is a meaningful prerequisite. However, it does not describe potential side effects (e.g., whether the app's state is lost, whether the session remains active, or any error conditions). For a destructive action like termination, more transparency would be expected, but the description covers the core requirement.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds the optional parameter and a key prerequisite. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. It is concise yet complete for a simple tool.

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 tool with only two parameters, no output schema, and a clear action, the description covers the essential information an agent needs to call it correctly. It mentions the session requirement and the default behavior. It does not detail error scenarios or post-conditions, but given the simplicity of the tool, this is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficiently 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning both parameters (udid and bundleId) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely restates the bundleId default behavior that is already in the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description adds no extra value.

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 action ('Terminate an app') and the resource ('on an iOS device'). It specifies the optional bundleId and default behavior, distinguishing it from other tools like ios_launch_app or ios_kill_app by its explicit scope. The verb and resource are precise, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires an active iOS automation session'), which gives context for when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like ios_kill_app or device_terminate_app, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it only partially satisfies this dimension.

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