simulator_clone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a copy, implying a non-destructive read/write operation. However, it doesn't mention side effects like whether the clone is automatically booted, requires same runtime, or if original simulator data is modified. It adds some value by stating 'identical copy', but lacks deeper behavioral details. No contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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 conveys the core action and outcome with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured. 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's moderate complexity (two required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides the basic purpose but leaves gaps. It doesn't mention return behavior (e.g., does it return the new simulator's UDID?), necessary prerequisites (e.g., source simulator must exist and likely be shut down), or any constraints (e.g., name uniqueness). The context signals indicate no output schema and simple params, so some completeness burden falls on the description.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (deviceId and newName). The description adds 'existing simulator' context which implies deviceId refers to a source, but it doesn't provide additional semantics beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the parameters well.

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 action 'Clone' and the resource 'an existing simulator', with the outcome 'create an identical copy'. This is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like simulator_create (which creates new simulators from scratch) and simulator_list (which lists existing ones). No ambiguity or tautology.

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 user wants to duplicate a simulator, but it does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like simulator_create or simulator_erase followed by creation. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the source simulator must be shut down) or exclusions. The context from sibling names helps, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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