boot_simulator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a state-mutating operation. It does not disclose whether booting is idempotent when already booted, whether the call blocks until boot completes, or that it changes device state — an agent has no safety or timing 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity is partly a symptom of the missing usage context rather than pure economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single param is schema-documented. Still, for a state-changing lifecycle tool with no annotations, the absence of prerequisite (obtain UDID first) and already-booted behavior leaves a meaningful gap.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('Simulator UDID'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb ('Boot') and resource ('iOS simulator'), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling shutdown_simulator at a glance. However, it does not explicitly name or route against that sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance: it does not mention that a UDID typically comes from list_devices/get_device, nor what happens if the device is already booted. The only implied usage is the obvious boot-before-interact flow.

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