iOS Simulator MCP

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (implying a write/mutation) and openWorldHint=true (suggesting unpredictable outcomes), but the description adds minimal behavioral context. It doesn't explain effects like potential UI changes, error conditions, or dependencies on simulator state, though it doesn't contradict annotations. With annotations covering safety hints, the description adds limited value beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema) and annotations providing safety hints, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on outcomes, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. For a UI interaction tool with mutation potential, more context would help, but annotations partially compensate.

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 100%, with all parameters documented in the schema (e.g., coordinates, duration, udid). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as coordinate units or swipe direction implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('Swipe') and target ('screen in the iOS Simulator'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'ui_tap' or 'ui_describe_point' that also interact with the iOS Simulator UI, missing explicit differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a booted simulator), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'ui_tap' for tapping instead of swiping, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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