Metro Logs MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether termination is graceful or forceful, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to app state/data, error conditions, or side effects. 'Terminate' implies a destructive operation, but behavioral details are missing.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

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 destructive operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'terminate' entails behaviorally, what happens on success/failure, or return values. Given the complexity of app termination and lack of structured safety hints, more context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (bundleId and udid). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone.

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 ('terminate') and target resource ('a running app on an iOS simulator'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ios_launch_app or ios_install_app. It uses precise technical terminology (iOS simulator) that differentiates it from Android tools in the sibling list.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the app must be running), when termination is appropriate versus other actions like relaunching, or what happens after termination. No exclusions or sibling tool comparisons are provided.

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