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. While 'simulate' implies a non-destructive action, it doesn't specify whether this requires the simulator to be in a particular state, what happens if the UDID is invalid, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

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 extremely concise with just four words that directly convey the core functionality. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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 tool that performs an action on a simulator with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the shake gesture accomplishes (e.g., triggering undo, testing motion events), what happens after execution, or any error conditions. The context signals show this is part of a complex testing/simulation environment where more guidance would be helpful.

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 the single parameter 'udid' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what's already in the structured schema, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 ('Simulate shake gesture') and target ('on a simulator'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'shake-device' which appears to serve a similar purpose, preventing a perfect score.

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 like 'shake-device' or other simulator interaction tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context requirements, or any explicit when/when-not scenarios.

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