status_bar_clear

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 accurately indicates a non-destructive reset operation (no data loss as it resets visual state). However, it does not disclose what the 'default values' are or confirm if any state is lost (e.g., all custom overrides cleared). It adds moderate context beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise—one sentence with no fluff. Every word serves a purpose, front-loading the action and result. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose. No output schema exists, but the tool likely returns a success status. The context from sibling tools helps infer its use. It could mention that the simulator must be booted, but for a reset operation with one param, it is largely complete.

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% with one parameter described as 'Simulator UDID.' The description does not add meaning beyond that—it does not explain how to obtain the UDID or that it must be for a booted simulator. The baseline is 3 due to full schema coverage, and the description adds no extra semantics.

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 a specific verb ('Reset') and resource ('simulator status bar') to indicate the tool's action. It clearly states the tool resets to 'default values,' which distinguishes it well from the sibling tool 'status_bar_override' that presumably sets custom values.

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 gives no explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, that the simulator must be booted, or when resetting is preferred over using 'status_bar_override.' The usage is implied but not stated.

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