launch_app_sim

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a launch operation (implying execution/mutation), specifies a critical prerequisite (app must be installed), and provides a typical workflow. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like app state changes or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized: it starts with the core purpose, highlights critical requirements, adds workflow context, and provides an example. Every sentence serves a clear purpose, though the example could be slightly more concise. There's no redundant information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering essential context: purpose, prerequisites, workflow, and parameter emphasis. It adequately compensates for the lack of structured behavioral annotations, though it doesn't describe return values or error behaviors, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description emphasizes that both simulatorUuid and bundleId are mandatory ('MUST provide both'), which reinforces the schema's required fields, but adds minimal additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Launches an app') and target resource ('in an iOS simulator'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like launch_app_device (for physical devices) or launch_mac_app (for macOS). It precisely defines the tool's scope without ambiguity.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: it specifies prerequisites ('You must install the app in the simulator before launching'), outlines the typical workflow ('build → install → launch'), and implicitly distinguishes it from alternatives by focusing on iOS simulators (unlike launch_app_device for devices).

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