ios_boot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the lengthy first compile, the iPhone unlock requirement, and the one-time developer certificate trust step. It does not cover idempotency or what happens if the device is already booted, but the prerequisites are unusually well surfaced.

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 front-loaded with the core action and follows with relevant prerequisites. The caveats earn their place, and there is little wasted text.

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 one-parameter setup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key operational context an agent needs. It could mention return value or already-booted behavior, but nothing critical is missing.

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 must compensate for the single device parameter. It does so by explaining accepted formats: a simulator name like "iPhone 17" or a UDID, plus an iPhone selection option, though the exact accepted value shape remains slightly ambiguous.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: boot a simulator or select an iPhone, then start the automation runner. It is distinguishable from siblings like ios_devices and ios_observe, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied as a setup step before automation actions, and the description notes the first-start compile delay. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus ios_devices or whether it is required before every session.

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