simulator_list_runtimes

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 describes a read-only listing operation, which implies no side effects. For a simple list tool, this is sufficient transparency, though it could mention whether runtimes from Xcode or third-party sources are included.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It concisely communicates the purpose and scope.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could optionally mention that runtimes correspond to Xcode SDK versions or that output includes version identifiers, but the current text is adequate for an agent to understand what it returns.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema provides no ambiguity. The description adds value by naming the specific runtimes listed, which helps the agent understand the output scope without needing param details.

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 'List available simulator runtimes' with specific examples (iOS, watchOS, tvOS, visionOS), which clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'simulator_list' which lists devices, and 'simulator_list_device_types' which lists device type templates.

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 this is for discovering runtime options before booting or creating simulators, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for related tasks like checking installed versions.

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