ios_boot_simulator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Boot') but doesn't explain what booting entails (e.g., starting a virtual device, potential delays, or system requirements), whether it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, side effects, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond the basic action.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'udid' parameter clearly documented as 'Simulator UDID'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as where to obtain the UDID or format details, which aligns with the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 'Boot an iOS simulator' clearly states the verb ('Boot') and resource ('iOS simulator'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ios_shutdown_simulator' or 'flutter_launch_emulator' beyond the iOS focus, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a simulator UDID from 'ios_list_simulators'), when not to use it (e.g., if already booted), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'ios_shutdown_simulator' or 'flutter_launch_emulator'.

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