install_app

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 only states the action and does not explain side effects, requirements (e.g., booted simulator, .app bundle format), or behavior on existing installations. This is a minimal description that leaves critical behavior undisclosed.

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, direct sentence that efficiently states the purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, making every word count.

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 simplicity (two straightforward parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally acceptable but incomplete. It fails to mention important usage context like the requirement for a booted simulator or the .app bundle format, which could lead to incorrect usage if the agent assumes too much.

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 already documents both parameters (udid and appPath) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline case.

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 'Install an app on a simulator' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like launch_app (which runs an installed app) and list_installed_apps. It conveys the tool's core function without ambiguity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the simulator needing to be booted. There is no mention of exclusions or context to help the agent decide between install_app and related simulator tools.

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