sim_boot

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that this is a boot operation via simctl, but it does not disclose side effects, whether it fails on already-booted simulators, whether it requires network access to a remote host, or what the output indicates.

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 filler. It states the core action and targeting mechanism immediately evoke the underlying command, giving the agent maximum signal in minimal space.

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?

Although an output schema may exist, the description is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters and several closely related siblings. It omits the meaning of host/user/key_path, the conditions under which booting is appropriate, and how this differs from sim_launch, leaving the agent to guess or inspect sibling schemas.

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 schema has 0% description coverageings and 4 parameters, yet the description only clarifies the meaning of 'udid' by saying the boot is 'by UDID'. The required 'host' and 'user' parameters, and optional 'key_path', are not explained at all, leaving important remote-execution semantics ambiguous.

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 ('Boot'), the target resource ('a simulator'), and the selection criterion ('by UDID'). It also names the underlying command ('xcrun simctl boot'), which unambiguously identifies the tool and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sim_launch or sim_shutdown.

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 tells the agent what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as sim_launch or sim_shutdown. It does not mention prerequisites like whether the simulator must be installed or whether it should already be shut down before booting.

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