MCP Appium Server

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 states the action but doesn't explain what 'push' entails—whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires specific simulator states, potential side effects, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning a top score for brevity and clarity.

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 complexity of a tool that interacts with simulators and involves parameters like payload files, and with no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, return values, or error handling, making it incomplete for effective agent use in this 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions (UDID, bundleId, payload). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, but since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't compensate or detract.

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 'Push a notification to a simulator' clearly states the action (push) and target (notification to a simulator), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'open_notifications' or 'xcode_trigger_memory_warning', which are also simulator-related but serve different purposes, so it misses full 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, such as other notification or simulator management tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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