phone_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key operational facts: experimental status, the iPhone Mirroring dependency, and the pyobjc/python3 requirement. It does not state that the call is read-only (inferable from 'status'), what happens when mirroring is not running, or what the individual fields ('live', 'overlay', 'paused') mean.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences: the 'EXPERIMENTAL' warning and prerequisites come first, then the return shape. The parenthetical field list is dense but functional; nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, listing the returned JSON fields (running, window, onscreen, frontmost, live, overlay, paused) is the right compensating move, and the prerequisites are stated. The only gap is that the meaning of the less obvious fields is not explained, which matters for interpreting the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The schema is fully described and the description correctly adds no spurious parameter narrative.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('iPhone Mirroring session status') plus the return format (JSON). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like phone_launch or phone_screenshot, which act on the phone rather than report state, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'status' framing — check state before or after driving the phone — but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or 'use X instead' guidance. The 'EXPERIMENTAL' and prerequisite notes give context for when it will fail, not when to prefer it.

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