orchestrator.run_ios_validation_loop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does include useful tags ('approval required', 'device mutation', 'risk:dangerous') and shows the build/test/evidence pipeline, which signals side effects and risk. However, it omits specifics about what mutations occur, reversibility, cleanup, or implications of repeated loop iterations.

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, compact sentence with risk tags front-loaded. It avoids fluff and conveys the overall workflow efficiently. It is slightly under-specified for the tool's complexity, but as a structural matter, every element 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?

The tool has 37 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage. A one-line pipeline overview is wholly insufficient for an agent to know how to set parameters, what the tool returns, or how loop recording behaves. This is a high-complexity tool that demands detailed operational context, which is absent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 37 parameters, and the description provides no parameter-level explanation. It only loosely maps to parameter groups via pipeline stages (e.g., build, launch, evidence), but gives no details about expected values, defaults, or relationships among parameters like appiumSteps, flowReplayBeforeSteps, maxTestIterations, or buildSettings.

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 names a concrete action ('Run') and a specific resource (iOS simulator validation loop) and enumerates the pipeline stages: build, install/launch, Appium XCUITest, verification, evidence, loop record. This clearly distinguishes it from the Android sibling and the many granular ios.* and appium.* tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this orchestrator versus composing the individual ios.build_app, ios.launch_app, appium.*, verify.*, and loop.* tools. The description implies a full-loop purpose, but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that should route an agent to an alternative.

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