Show native Simulator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool boots a device and waits, which implies a mutating action and a possible delay. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., Xcode availability), failure modes, or whether the device must already be available. The behavior is partially transparent but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key action (boot and wait) and clearly states the outcome (open window for interaction). No wasted words; it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: booting, waiting, and opening the window. However, it lacks details like whether the tool is blocking, how long the wait might be, or error scenarios (e.g., if the UDID is invalid). Given the low complexity, this is adequate but not thorough.

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% and the parameter udid is well documented ('Simulator UDID. Use simulator_list first when unsure.'). The description adds minimal extra meaning, only implying the device must be 'available'. This is sufficient but not additive beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: boot a device and open its native Simulator window for interaction. It uses specific verbs (boot, open) and identifies the resource (native Simulator window). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools simulator_boot and simulator_list, which might be confused with this tool.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like simulator_boot or simulator_list. While the parameter schema hints 'Use simulator_list first when unsure', this is not in the tool description itself, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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