native-devtools-status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description entirely covers behavioral transparency. It details all return fields (envSetup, appRunning, connected, requiresRestart, nextLaunchWillBeInjected) with clear explanations, and mentions failure conditions ('Fails if the simulator server is not running for the given UDID or the bundleId is not found'). No contradictions.

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 efficiently structured with an initial purpose sentence, usage guidance, and a bullet-style list of return fields. Each part is necessary and adds value. No redundant or extraneous content.

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 there is no output schema, the description comprehensively explains the return object semantics, including conditional logic for each field. It covers all necessary context for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results, including fallback actions and failure conditions.

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 input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (udid: 'Simulator UDID', bundleId: 'Bundle ID of the app to check'). The description adds context by explaining how to interpret return values to decide next steps, reinforcing parameter relevance without adding new details. With 100% schema coverage, a 3 would be baseline, but the usage context elevates it slightly.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check whether native devtools are connected to a specific app and whether the next launch is prepared for injection.' It specifies the verb (check) and resource (native devtools status), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a readiness check before using other hierarchy/network tools.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use when you need to verify native devtools readiness before calling native-full-hierarchy, native-describe-screen, or native-network-logs.' It also explains specific conditions with recommended actions (e.g., if requiresRestart true, call restart-app). This is thorough and leaves no ambiguity.

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