mac_boot_simulator

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

The description only states the boot action and default selection. It does not disclose what happens if the simulator is already booted, whether booting is idempotent, what side effects occur, or what the return/result looks like. With no annotations, these behavioral details are missing.

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 one tight sentence with no filler or repeated schema information. It is front-loaded with the action and then states the default behavior. It could be slightly clearer, but it 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to make a basic call. However, it leaves gaps around parameter semantics, idempotence, and behavior when no device is specified, so it is only minimally complete.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at default behavior when the parameter is omitted. It does not explain what device_name_or_udid accepts, how matching works, or what values are valid beyond the property name.

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 verb and resource: 'Boot a simulator', and further clarifies the default selection (already-booted one or newest iPhone). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like mac_run_on_simulator or mac_list_simulators.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as mac_run_on_simulator, mac_install_simulator_app, or mac_screenshot. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or hints about the expected workflow context.

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