iOS Simulator: Power

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot: a cold boot takes tens of seconds, puts a window on the user's screen, and shifts which simulator an unqualified call resolves to. Idempotency is restated with concrete detail (booting a booted simulator succeeds), which reinforces rather than merely repeats the 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and each clause carrying distinct information (latency, user-visible side effect, resolution side effect, idempotency). The em-dash construction makes it slightly dense but nothing reads as filler.

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?

With four fully documented parameters, idempotency annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the operationally risky facts an agent needs: latency, window visibility, and post-boot resolution changes. Only minor gaps remain around failure/timeout behavior, which is partly addressed by wait_ms in the schema.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one genuinely non-schema nuance — that the boot changes what an unqualified call resolves to — but it does not describe the `state`, `wait_ms`, or `open_window` parameters, leaving the schema to carry that load.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource: 'Boot or shut down a simulator.' This is immediately distinguishable from siblings like ios_simulator_erase, ios_simulator_install, and ios_simulator_launch, which mutate content rather than power state.

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?

Explains when this tool is mandatory ('Booting is the one thing this server will not do for you implicitly'), which tells the agent it must call this before other tools can work on a fresh device. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use beyond idempotency, so it falls 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.