xcode-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('boot') but doesn't explain what booting entails (e.g., starting a virtual device, potential delays, or system requirements), nor does it cover error conditions or side effects, leaving significant gaps.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Boot a simulator device', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 device (a mutation operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, success indicators, or error handling, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in context with its siblings.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'device' parameter documented as 'Device UDID or name to boot'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, but since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 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 'Boot a simulator device' clearly states the action (boot) and target resource (simulator device), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'simctl_shutdown' or 'simctl_launch' which also operate on simulator devices, missing explicit distinction.

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., device must be shut down), exclusions, or how it differs from related tools like 'simctl_launch' or 'simctl_shutdown', leaving the agent without context for selection.

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