boot_simulator

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention what happens if the simulator is already booted, whether the command waits for boot completion, or any side effects. The only extra behavioral detail ('will use the most recent iOS version if multiple match') is in the schema, not the description.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource immediately, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

For a simple boot operation with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks guidance on expected output, error conditions, or preconditions, but given the tool's simplicity this is a moderate gap rather than a severe one.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal semantic value by naming the two identification modes (UDID or name), but this is already reflected in the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Boot') with a clear resource ('iOS simulator') and identifies the two targeting methods (UDID or name). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_simulators or shutdown_simulator.

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 the primary use case: booting a simulator by UDID or name. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., list first), but the context is clear enough for most agents.

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