simulator_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the action (create) implying a write/mutation operation, which is appropriate. However, it does not disclose whether this requires specific permissions, the effect of name collisions, or any cleanup needed. The description adds marginal behavioral context beyond 'Create' but lacks depth.

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, focused sentence that efficiently communicates the action and key parameters. It is not overspecified or verbose. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by placing the core action ('Create a new iOS simulator') at the very beginning, though the current structure is still clear and compact.

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 create tool with 3 simple required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but not comprehensive. It lacks details on expected outcomes, potential side effects (e.g., does creation block? is it immediate?), or error conditions. Given the complexity of iOS simulator internals (runtime availability, disk space), the description leaves gaps.

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 each parameter. The description merely restates the schema's purpose ('specified device type and runtime') without adding new semantics like valid value patterns or constraints beyond examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description offers no additional insight.

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 specific verbs and resources ('Create...iOS simulator with specified device type and runtime'), clearly distinguishing the action from sibling tools like simulator_boot, simulator_delete, or simulator_clone, which have different purposes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from simulator_clone, which may also create a simulator instance.

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 context (creating a new simulator) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like simulator_list_runtimes or simulator_list_device_types, which are likely prerequisites. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, forcing the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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