Diagnose idb Environment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: what is checked (CLI, companion, version floor, Xcode framework, stale registrations) and that it returns a JSON report plus remediation commands. It also explains a specific failure mode, giving the agent a clear mental model without contradicting the safe, read-only nature.

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 well-structured and efficient. It front-loads the purpose, then lists checks, provides a specific usage scenario, and states the return value. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise enough to parse quickly but detailed enough to be useful.

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 zero-parameter complexity, existing annotations, and the description of the return format (JSON report plus remediation commands), the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, checks performed, when to use it, and expected output. No critical information is missing for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameter details since none exist. It correctly focuses on the tool's behavior and return value instead.

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 verb and resource: 'Diagnose whether idb can drive simulator UI on this machine.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on environment diagnostics rather than direct UI interaction (idb-ui-*) or build/install operations. The specific checks listed further clarify the scope.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Run this first when taps, swipes or typing appear to succeed but nothing happens on screen.' It also provides a concrete scenario (Xcode 27, idb-companion <1.5.1). However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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