MCP Appium Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on failure (e.g., if a simulator with the same name exists), or any side effects. For a creation 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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration.

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 creation/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., does it return the new simulator's ID?), potential errors, or dependencies. Given the complexity of creating a simulator and the lack of structured information elsewhere, the description should provide more complete context.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (name, deviceTypeId, runtimeId). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new iOS simulator'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'xcode_get_ios_simulators' (which lists simulators) or 'xcode_delete_simulator' (which removes them), so it doesn't achieve the highest score for sibling distinction.

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. There are no mentions of prerequisites (e.g., needing Xcode installed), when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for testing iOS apps), or what to do instead in other scenarios (e.g., use 'list-ios-simulators' to check existing ones first).

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