mac_run_on_simulator

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 reveals that the tool performs four stages, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects such as overwriting an installed app, the direction or scope of 'sync', potential build time, or whether it boots the simulator automatically. For a state-changing workflow, this is a meaningful gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It could be more polished — 'Sync' is vague without an object — but it is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool description.

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?

This is a multi-stage, state-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The one-line summary gives the high-level pipeline but omits critical context like default behavior (rebuild and sync_first default to true), what counts as a successful run, and how to select or specify the simulator device.

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% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. An agent must guess the semantics of rebuild, sync_first, project_path, and device_name_or_udid from names alone, with no explanation of how they affect the sync/build/install/launch sequence.

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 clear verb chain — 'Sync, build for the simulator, install and launch the app' — and identifies the target environment as 'the remote Mac's iOS Simulator.' This distinguishes it as an all-in-one run workflow from more granular siblings like mac_build, mac_sync_project, or mac_install_simulator_app, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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 implies its use case: run the app on the iOS Simulator with a sync/build/install/launch sequence. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this composite tool over chaining mac_sync_project, mac_build, and mac_install_simulator_app, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as a booted simulator or configured project.

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