ios_run_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses background execution, polling with ios_task_status, API-key prerequisites, step budget, blocking wait behavior, and the fast/reliable mode tradeoff. It does not mention device side effects or irreversibility, but the major operational traits are covered.

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 distinction, then follows with essential operational notes and a compact Args block. Every section contributes useful information without unnecessary repetition.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers invocation, prerequisites, background behavior, and all parameters. It leaves some gaps around what device state changes may occur and what the eventual result contains, but the polling reference covers result retrieval adequately.

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 document the parameters, and it does: task meaning and example, max_steps as budget, wait_seconds including 0 behavior, mode semantics with both enum values, and device as simulator name or UDID. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 a specific action (hand a whole task to the built-in agent) and resource, and explicitly contrasts it with driving step by step. This lets an agent distinguish ios_run_task from the low-level tap/swipe/type siblings.

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?

It gives clear usage guidance: use this instead of step-by-step control, poll results with ios_task_status, and configure ANTHROPIC_API_KEY or ant auth login. The alternative tool and the background/polling workflow are both named explicitly.

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