xcode-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('Shutdown') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to running apps, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 and scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it highly concise 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 a shutdown operation (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, reversibility, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for safe and effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'device' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain UDID formats or side effects). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Shutdown') and the target ('a simulator device or all simulators'), using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'simctl_boot' (which starts devices) and 'simctl_terminate' (which stops apps, not devices), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for shutting down simulators, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'simctl_terminate' (for apps) or 'simctl_list' (for checking status). It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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