xcode-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but adds minimal behavioral context. It states the action ('Install') but doesn't disclose traits like whether it overwrites existing apps, requires specific simulator states (e.g., booted), handles errors, or has side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's function, making it easy to parse quickly. No fluff or redundancy is present.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., simulator state), and what happens post-installation. For a tool that modifies simulator state, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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%, with both parameters ('device' and 'app_path') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format details or usage examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Install') and resource ('app bundle on a simulator'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'simctl_uninstall' (removal) and 'simctl_launch' (execution), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The specificity is good but could be slightly enhanced by noting it's for iOS/macOS simulators.

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., the simulator must be booted, which might be inferred from sibling 'simctl_boot'), exclusions, or comparisons to tools like 'simctl_launch' (which might start an installed app). This lack of context leaves the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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