Shut down a simulator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool targets a simulator optionally specified by name/udid and falls back to the booted one, but it does not mention side effects, error behavior for unknown names, or confirmation. The primary behavior is still clear enough for a simple shutdown command.

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?

One short sentence that immediately states the action, the target, and the default behavior. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the main call contract: what it does, how to select the target, and the default behavior. It could add error or response details, but those are unlikely to be essential for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 provides only a bare string property with no description, so the phrase 'by name or udid (defaults to the booted one)' adds essential meaning and clarifies that the parameter is optional. This compensates well for 0% schema coverage, though it omits example formats.

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 states a specific action ('Shut down') and resource ('a simulator'), and clarifies selection by name, udid, or default to the booted one. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling boot_device, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it over alternatives such as boot_device, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The default-to-booted note is selection behavior, not usage guidance.

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