jevsim_inspect

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint: true. The description adds two non-obvious behavioral facts beyond that: Android first use starts an Appium session and returned UI text may be private. These are material for an agent deciding to call the tool and handling its output, and nothing contradicts the read-only annotation.

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?

Three short sentences each carry distinct information: the operation, the parameter routing, and a side-effect/privacy warning. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter routing, a meaningful side effect, and a privacy caveat. It does not describe the return shape in detail or explicitly state that a device identifier is effectively required, but for a simple read tool the core context is largely complete.

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 carry the parameter-explanation burden. It successfully maps simulatorId to iOS and deviceId to Android, and clarifies that platform must be android for Android use. It could add a note about the platform default or what happens when no device identifier is supplied, but the core mapping is sufficient.

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 opens with a precise action and resource: 'Read accessibility state for an explicit booted iOS simulator or connected Android device.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the siblings jevsim_status and jevsim_run_steps by framing it as an accessibility inspection rather than a status check or action execution.

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?

It gives explicit invocation guidance: use simulatorId for iOS, and platform android with deviceId for Android. It also warns that the first Android use starts an Appium session. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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