mac_list_simulators

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool is a read-only listing operation and scopes to the remote Mac, but it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior or clarify how the only_booted flag affects results. The gap is moderate but not dangerous for a listing operation.

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 focused sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool and front-loads the core action.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the one optional parameter is visible in the schema. However, the description lacks any clarification of the only_booted parameter and provides no usage context relative to sibling tools, leaving modest but real 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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining only_booted, but it does not. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify the default behavior or semantics of the flag.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('iOS simulators') and scope ('on the remote Mac'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like mac_boot_simulator, mac_run_on_simulator, and mac_install_simulator_app, which perform different actions.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer that this is the discovery step before booting or running on a simulator.

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