stop_app_sim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Stop sim app.' It does not explain whether the app is terminated gracefully, whether it is uninstalled, whether user data is preserved, or what happens if no app is running. This is minimal disclosure for an action-oriented tool.

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 with no filler content. The '[XcodeBuildMCP]' prefix provides context, though it is a minor distraction. For a simple zero-parameter tool, the length is appropriate, though 'sim app' could be expanded slightly for clarity without losing conciseness.

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 tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly sufficient, but it omits important behavioral context such as the scope of 'stop' (e.g., does it stop all running instances?) and any side effects. The presence of sibling tools like 'launch_app_sim' helps, but the description itself leaves room for ambiguity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The schema has no properties, and the description adds no parameter-related details, but this is not a gap because there is nothing to parameterize. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Stop') and a resource ('sim app'), making it clear the tool terminates a simulator app. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'launch_app_sim' and 'build_run_sim.' However, 'sim app' is somewhat abbreviated and could be more explicit (e.g., 'app on the iOS Simulator').

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name suggests it is the inverse of 'launch_app_sim,' but the description does not state that or mention any preconditions like needing a running app. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and sibling context.

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