physical_device_list

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 only states the purpose and a prerequisite. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens if no devices are connected, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It contains no filler words and efficiently conveys the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 has no output schema, the description should explain what the list returns (e.g., device names, UDIDs, connection status). It does not. Additionally, with no annotations, the description should cover behavioral aspects like idempotency or error conditions. These gaps make it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

There are no parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). According to the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high but the description adds no additional meaning. The description does not elaborate on the output or any implicit parameters, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'connected physical iOS devices', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like simulator_list (lists simulators) and physical_device_install (installs). The prerequisite requirement adds further specificity.

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 a prerequisite (Xcode 15+ with devicectl), which provides some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., simulator_list), nor does it mention when not to use it. The implication is clear from the name, but explicit guidance is lacking.

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