List devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one useful trait beyond the name: booted devices are marked. It says nothing about whether the call is read-only in effect, whether it starts or scans for devices, latency, or how many devices are returned.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with the useful "booted ones are marked" detail appended. No filler sentences.

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 zero-parameter lister with no output schema, the description nearly suffices: it states what is listed and that boot status is flagged. It omits the return shape (device identifiers/names) that an agent needs to feed connect or install_app, which is the main remaining gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the tool is unfiltered and returns all devices.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("List available iOS simulators and Android devices") and adds the platform scope, so the agent knows what will be enumerated. It does not differentiate from the sibling list_targets, so the agent cannot tell at a glance which listing tool to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery step before connect/install_app/open_simulator, but nothing says when to use it or when to prefer list_targets or ping instead. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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