iOS Simulator Screenshot [Pro]

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must shoulder the behavioral disclosure burden. It correctly states the tool is read-only (screenshot) and identifies the output format (base64). However, it does not mention potential side effects (none expected), authorization requirements, or performance characteristics. For a non-destructive tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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 sentence (two clauses) with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose: '[Pro] Take a screenshot of a running iOS simulator.' and completes with return info. Every part is necessary and efficient.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential information: purpose, target (simulator), and return format (base64). It does not explain the output schema or potential errors, but for a simple screenshot tool with two well-described parameters, this suffices. Lacks mention of the need for a booted simulator, but that is implied by 'running iOS simulator'.

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% (both parameters have descriptions). The description does not add extra meaning beyond 'device_id' (Simulator UDID) and 'format' (png/jpeg default png), but the schema already provides this clearly. According to rules, baseline is 3 since coverage is high and description does not add new info.

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 explicitly states 'Take a screenshot of a running iOS simulator' with a specific verb ('Take') and resource ('screenshot of iOS simulator'). It also mentions the return format ('Returns the image as base64'), which distinguishes it from other screenshot tools like 'take_screenshot' (likely for device) and 'flutter_screenshot_widget' (Flutter-specific). The '[Pro]' tag is cosmetic but does not detract.

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 when a screenshot of an iOS simulator is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'take_screenshot' (for device) or 'flutter_screenshot_widget'. It also lacks prerequisites (e.g., simulator must be booted) or exclusions. Given the sibling context, some differentiation is implied but not articulated.

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