Metro Logs MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), requires external setup ('Requires IDB to be installed'), and specifies the output format. It does not mention potential errors, performance implications, or authentication needs, but covers essential operational context adequately.

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 purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential behavioral and setup details. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and output, the second specifies prerequisites. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (read operation with one optional parameter) and no annotations or output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool does, the return format, and prerequisites. It could improve by mentioning error handling or limitations, but it covers the essentials well for an agent to use it correctly.

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 parameter 'udid' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or details about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without compensating 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 specific action ('Get accessibility information') and resource ('entire iOS simulator screen'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ios_describe_point' by specifying the scope ('entire screen'). It explicitly mentions the return format ('nested tree of UI elements with labels, values, and frames'), which further clarifies its 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 provides clear context by specifying it's for iOS simulators and requires IDB installation, which helps determine when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'ios_describe_point' for specific points), which prevents a perfect score.

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