stop_app_sim_name_ws

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is for stopping an app, implying a destructive action, but does not clarify permissions needed, side effects (e.g., whether the app closes gracefully or is force-quit), error conditions, or what happens if the app isn't running. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a critical requirement in the second. Both sentences are essential—the first defines the tool's function, and the second prevents misuse—with no wasted words.

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 is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, side effects), prerequisites (e.g., simulator must be running), and expected outcomes, leaving gaps that could lead to incorrect usage.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal value by emphasizing that both parameters are required, but does not provide additional context beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., format examples or interdependencies).

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 ('Stops'), target resource ('an app running in an iOS simulator'), and key constraint ('by simulator name'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'stop_app_sim' (which likely uses a different identifier) and 'stop_app_device' (which targets physical devices).

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 ('by simulator name') and provides a mandatory requirement ('You MUST provide both parameters'), but does not specify when not to use it or name alternative tools for different scenarios (e.g., stopping by simulator ID or on a device).

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