ios.shutdown_simulator

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description includes inline tags '[approval required][device mutation][risk:dangerous]' which disclose that this is a mutation, dangerous, and requires approval. This covers the key behavioral aspects beyond the simple 'shutdown' action, making it more transparent than many tools without annotations.

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 extremely concise: '[approval required][device mutation][risk:dangerous] Shutdown an iOS simulator.' The critical risk tags are front-loaded, followed by a clear action. Every word contributes, with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 tool is simple, but the description lacks essential context for correct invocation. It does not explain how to specify the device parameter, what happens to running apps or unsaved state, or how to discover valid device identifiers (e.g., via ios.list_simulators). Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to call it reliably.

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 has one required parameter 'device' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'device' should be (e.g., UDID, name, or identifier), nor does it reference any source for obtaining it. The description adds zero semantic value for parameters.

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: 'Shutdown an iOS simulator.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ios.boot_simulator and device.stop_emulator by explicitly targeting iOS simulators, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., obtaining a device identifier via ios.list_simulators), and no exclusions or preferred contexts. The description provides no usage direction.

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