Metro Logs MCP

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. While 'boot' implies a state-changing operation, the description lacks details on permissions required, whether this is destructive to existing simulator states, timeouts, or what happens if the simulator is already booted. It mentions using 'list_ios_simulators' but doesn't explain the boot process itself.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides essential usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently includes only necessary information.

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 tool with one parameter (fully documented in schema) and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers purpose and basic usage but lacks behavioral details (e.g., side effects, error handling) that would be important for a boot operation. Given the simplicity, it's minimally viable but could be more comprehensive.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'udid' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by referencing 'list_ios_simulators' as the source for UDIDs, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Boot') and target resource ('iOS simulator by UDID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_ios_simulators' (which finds simulators) and other iOS tools that perform different operations (e.g., 'ios_install_app', 'ios_launch_app'). The verb 'boot' is precise and 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 description explicitly provides when to use this tool ('Boot an iOS simulator by UDID') and directs users to an alternative tool for prerequisite information ('Use list_ios_simulators to find available simulators'). This gives clear context and distinguishes it from other iOS tools that might require a booted simulator.

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