list_devices

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' strongly implies a non-mutating read, and the mention of 'booted and available' adds useful state context, but there is no explicit statement of safety, side effects, or ordering. Adequate for an obviously read-only enumeration, but not rich.

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 efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded after the verb; no wasted clauses. The parenthetical is mildly redundant rather than wasteful.

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-value explanation is rightly absent, and a zero-required, single-parameter read tool needs little more. Only the missing routing guidance against siblings keeps it from being complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the only_booted parameter is already fully documented in the schema; the description adds no filtering syntax or semantics beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List') and resource ('iOS simulators') with a scope qualifier ('booted and available'), which cleanly separates it from device-manipulation siblings like boot_simulator, shutdown_simulator and get_device. It loses a point only because the parenthetical scope phrasing partially overlaps awkwardly with the only_booted parameter, making the default scope slightly ambiguous.

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 on when to call this versus get_device (single-device lookup) or list_apps, and no statement of prerequisites. The implied use case — enumerating simulators before boot/shutdown — is left entirely to inference.

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