Xcode MCP Server

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. It states the action ('Boots') but doesn't describe what happens during booting (e.g., startup time, state changes, error conditions), whether it requires specific permissions, or what the output looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 that this is a mutation tool (implied by 'Boots') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), output format, or usage context. The agent must rely heavily on the tool name and schema alone, which is insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 single parameter 'udid' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying that a UDID identifies the simulator, which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 action ('Boots') and the target resource ('an iOS simulator identified by its UDID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'shutdown_simulator' or 'list_simulators', but the verb 'Boots' implies a specific startup operation distinct from shutdown or listing.

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., whether the simulator must exist or be in a shutdown state), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'shutdown_simulator' or 'list_simulators'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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