ios.boot_simulator

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden and does well by explicitly flagging approval requirement, device mutation, and dangerous risk. It also discloses the optional wait-for-boot behavior)Skip. It does not mention behavior if the simulator is already booted, but the key side-effect profile is clear.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The tag prefix communicates risk at a glance, and the remaining text concisely states the action and optional behavior.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin for reliable invocation. It does not explain what the device parameter should contain, how timeoutMs affects behavior, or whether a pre-existing simulator is required. The core action is clear, but the agent is left guessing important invocation details.

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 provides no descriptions, so the description must explain the parameters. It only covers waitForBoot via 'optionally wait until boot completes'; device and timeoutMs remain unexplained beyond their names and types.

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: 'Boot an iOS simulator', which clearly separates it from iOS shutdown and Android-oriented device tools. The optional wait-for-boot behavior is also stated. This is not a tautology and carries concrete meaning.

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 use case is implied: call this when a booted iOS simulator is needed, likely before installation or launch steps. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of checking available simulators first, and no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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