mac_install_simulator_app

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 states that the tool installs and launches the app, but it does not disclose whether an existing app is replaced, whether the simulator must already be booted, what state changes occur, or any authorization requirements. This is a mutating operation with only minimal behavioral context.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose, includes a relevant artifact-source example, and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin for an installation tool with optional parameters. It does not explain how device_name_or_udid and bundle_id are used, what happens if they are omitted, prerequisites like booted simulators, or the side effects of installing over an existing app.

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. The phrase 'zipped simulator .app' maps to app_zip_path, but bundle_id and device_name_or_udid are not explained at all, including why they are optional or how they affect the install/launch. The parameter names and titles offer some clue, but the description adds little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: installing a zipped .app on the remote Mac's simulator, and it also states the follow-up action of launching it. This clearly differentiates it from nearby tools like device_install_app, which targets physical devices, and mac_run_on_simulator, which focuses on running rather than installing a zipped artifact.

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 phrase 'e.g. from ci_download_artifacts' gives a clear workflow context, implying this tool is meant for taking a downloaded artifact and installing it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling alternatives such as mac_run_on_simulator or device_install_app, nor does it state exclusions such as requiring a booted simulator.

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