simctl_boot_device

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and returns a 'Success message', omitting side effects, potential failures (e.g., device not found, architecture mismatch), or state changes. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand tool behavior.

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 concise, with the purpose stated first and parameters listed clearly. It avoids unnecessary words, though a slightly more structured format (e.g., separating usage notes) could improve readability without adding length.

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 complexity of booting a simulator and the absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., device must exist, Xcode required), error conditions, or the significance of the arch parameter. The return value is vague; even with an output schema, the description should provide more context.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains device as 'UDID, name, or ''booted'' for current device' and arch as 'arm64 or x86_64', which clarifies acceptable values. However, it does not specify the default behavior for arch when omitted, limiting completeness.

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 'Boot a simulator device', using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like simctl_create_device or simctl_shutdown_device.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., device existence) or exclusion criteria. However, the name and purpose are sufficiently clear for basic selection.

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