Boot a simulator

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and does disclose a key side effect ('open the Simulator app') beyond booting. It does not mention behavior when the simulator is already booted or failure modes.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and no redundant restatement of the tool name. It packs the default behavior and side effect into minimal space.

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 one-parameter boot operation, the description is nearly complete: action, parameter semantics, default, and side effect. It does not mention the return value or error conditions, but those are secondary for this kind of command.

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 schema likely provides only a generic string type with no per-parameter description, so the description adds essential meaning: the parameter can be a simulator name or UDID, and omitting it selects the configured device.

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') and resource ('a simulator'), and adds the accepted input forms ('by name or udid'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as list_devices and shutdown_device.

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?

It explains the invocation conditions: supply a name or UDID, or fall back to 'the configured device'. It could explicitly contrast with sibling tools like shutdown_device, but the usage context is still clear.

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