ios_list_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds useful context by explaining that `ready` indicates automation blockers and `blockers` details them. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable clarification about output semantics. Every word earns its place.

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?

With an output schema, full parameter schema coverage, and comprehensive annotations, the definition is operationally complete. The `ready`/`blockers` note addresses the only non-obvious interpretation of the result. Nothing an agent needs to correctly select and invoke this tool is missing.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter `kind`, including its default value and filter options, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 and resource: lists iOS simulators and attached physical iPhones. The second sentence clarifies `ready` and `blockers`, giving additional meaning to the output. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like ios_doctor or ios_session_status.

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 phrase 'available for automation' implies this is used for discovering devices before automation, but there is no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. No sibling tool performs the same listing, so the lack of exclusions is less critical. Guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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