boot

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 90-second timeout and notes that the device is selected via separate inputs. It does not disclose whether the command blocks until boot completes, whether it is idempotent, or what failure/return behavior to expect.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, the selection caveat is second, and the timeout is a useful standalone detail. Every sentence contributes value.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple boot operation, especially with a 100%-covered schema and an output schema present. However, the tool has 16 parameters and no annotations, and the description does not clarify which selectors apply to which platform, whether the command waits for boot completion, or what 'prepare' entails beyond booting, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent.

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 schema already documents all 16 parameters. The description adds a small amount of conceptual guidance by referring to 'device-selection inputs' and clarifying that the device is not named here, but it does not map which of the many parameters count as device-selection inputs or add syntax-level detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Boot or prepare') applied to a clear resource ('the selected device or simulator') and explains the intent ('so later commands can target it'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the scope is specific enough that an agent can understand what the tool is for.

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 conveys when to use the tool: before later commands that target the device, and it clarifies that device selection happens through device-selection inputs rather than by naming the device here. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention any alternative tools, leaving some usage guidance to inference.

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