info_ios

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 discloses the tool is read-only (get info) and platform-specific (macOS). However, it does not mention error conditions, permission requirements, or the return format structure, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes key constraints. Every part contributes value, with no unnecessary words.

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 (one optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, platform, and return content. It could be more complete by listing expected return fields, but is adequate for an agent to understand usage.

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% coverage with a single optional parameter 'device_id'. The description adds value by noting it defaults to the first booted simulator, which is not in the schema. This clarifies behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool retrieves detailed info about an iOS Simulator, listing specific details (name, OS version, screen size). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_ios_simulators' (which lists all simulators) and 'info_android' (Android counterpart).

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 mentions 'macOS only,' which is a key usage constraint. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when needing a list vs. details on a specific simulator). No exclusion scenarios are given.

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