simctl_privacy_control

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the tool returns a success message, omitting important details like whether the simulator must be booted, whether the action triggers a system prompt, or the scope of the 'reset' 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 terse and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by an Args section with each parameter and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

While the tool is relatively simple, the description could be more complete. It does not explain what constitutes a valid service (e.g., a list or pattern), how the bundle_id affects behavior, or the response format beyond 'success message'. An output schema exists but is not shown; the description's return note is minimal.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds significant meaning: it specifies the format of device (UDID, name, 'booted'), enumerates actions (grant, revoke, reset), lists example services (photos, camera, etc.), and indicates bundle_id is optional. This goes well beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 'Control app privacy permissions on a simulator device' clearly specifies the verb (control) and resource (privacy permissions on a simulator). It is distinct from sibling tools like simctl_boot_device or simctl_install_app, which cover different functionalities.

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 lists parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for granting, revoking, or resetting privacy permissions, but lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., app must be installed) or exclusions (e.g., not for physical devices).

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