test_sim

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 disclosing behavioral traits. The single sentence 'Test on iOS sim' reveals nothing about side effects, prerequisites, what happens to the simulator, or output format. It does not even state if it builds first, requires a pre-built app, or how results are reported.

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, consisting of a single sentence. It contains no filler or redundant information, and the key components (test, iOS sim) are present. However, it is so brief that it lacks useful elaboration, though conciseness itself is not over-penalized.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the test workflow, how parameters like xctestrunPath fit together, or what a typical invocation looks like. The context is insufficient for an agent to correctly use the tool without additional inference.

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 80%, meaning most parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but this is acceptable given the high coverage. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Test on iOS sim' clearly indicates the tool runs tests on an iOS simulator, using an imperative verb and a specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like build_sim and launch_app_sim, which serve different purposes. However, it lacks specificity about the type of test (unit vs UI) and could be more explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_run_sim or launch_app_sim. The description only states what it does, not the context or prerequisites. There is no mention of when to choose this over other testing or build tools.

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