pt_boot_simulator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the booted simulator becomes the active device for subsequent commands. This goes beyond merely restating the tool's name and provides useful side-effect information, though it does not cover edge cases like already-booted simulators or failure conditions.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, each adding essential information. The first sentence states the core action, and the second explains the important side effect. There is no filler or redundant content.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the operation and its impact on subsequent commands. It does not mention prerequisites like using pt_list_simulators to find the UDID or error handling, but these are not critical for basic invocation. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct use.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the 'udid' parameter (100% coverage), and the description repeats 'by its UDID' without adding new meaning. The parameter semantics are adequately covered by the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Boot' with the resource 'iOS simulator' and specifies the input mechanism 'by its UDID'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like pt_shutdown_simulator and pt_launch_app by focusing on the simulator booting action.

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 'becomes the active device for subsequent commands' clearly indicates the intended usage: boot a simulator before running other simulator-dependent commands. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.

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