pt_list_simulators

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and adequately discloses the output (list with UDID, name, state, runtime version) and scope ('all available'). It does not mention side effects, but listing is inherently read-only and safe; the description avoids ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the action and fields, the second gives practical advice. No extraneous wording, perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters and a simple list output, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose, expected return contents, and placement in a workflow. It doesn't elaborate on output formatting or edge cases, but such detail is not essential for a listing tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, making parameter description unnecessary. Schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description accurately reflects that no inputs are required, so a baseline of 4 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 clearly states the tool lists all available iOS simulators with specific fields (UDID, name, state, runtime version). It unambiguously distinguishes itself from sibling tools like boot, shutdown, or launch actions by focusing on enumeration.

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 instruction 'Use this first to find a simulator to work with' provides explicit when-to-use guidance and implies it precedes other simulator operations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none are necessary given the tool's simple listing role.

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