launch_app_sim_name_ws

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 rather than read-only), specifies required parameters, mentions prerequisites (installation needed), and provides a typical workflow. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the app is already running.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The three sentences each earn their place: stating the purpose, emphasizing requirements, and providing workflow context with an example. While efficient, the example syntax could be slightly more concise.

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 well by covering purpose, requirements, prerequisites, and workflow. However, it doesn't describe what happens on success (does it return process ID? just confirmation?), potential errors, or how it differs from similar launch tools. Given the context complexity, it's mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it emphasizes that both simulatorName and bundleId are required (which is already in the required array) and provides an example. No additional semantic context is provided for the args parameter or parameter interactions.

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'), target resource ('in an iOS simulator'), and method ('by simulator name'), distinguishing it from siblings like launch_app_device or launch_app_sim. It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('You MUST provide both the simulatorName and bundleId parameters') and provides clear prerequisites ('You must install the app in the simulator before launching'). It also outlines the typical workflow ('build → install → launch'), giving comprehensive guidance on proper usage context and sequencing.

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