iOS Simulator: Push

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

Annotations only provide readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, so the description carries most of the burden. It discloses the simulated nature, the payload requirement to contain an 'aps' key, and the fact that the app need not be running. It stops short of describing the visible result or any permission behavior, but the core behavior is clear.

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 dense sentences with no filler. Each clause adds a necessary constraint or limitation, and the most important scoping 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?

For a 3-parameter action with a nested payload and no output schema, the description plus schema gives the agent everything needed to invoke it correctly: device selection behavior, payload format and size, bundle id pattern, and push-type restrictions. No critical selection or invocation information is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic value beyond the schema: it requires the payload to be a 'normal remote-notification body' containing an 'aps' key. The schema already covers device selection rules, the payload example, byte limit, and bundle id pattern.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Deliver a push notification' to the iOS simulator. It immediately distinguishes this tool from real APNs delivery by adding 'with no APNs certificate and no server,' and no sibling tool performs push, so there is no ambiguity.

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 a clear context for use: simulator push testing without needing APNs infrastructure. It also states explicit exclusions ('not VoIP, complications or file-provider') and prerequisites ('The app must be installed; it does not have to be running'), though it does not name alternative tools.

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