sim_launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what happens if the app is not installed, if the simulator is not booted, or any side effects. It also doesn't mention the default udid='booted' or error behavior. For a mutating tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence and efficient in wording, but it is under-specified. It does not front-load critical usage constraints or parameter context. While concise, it sacrifices necessary information for brevity.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters (3 required) and no schema descriptions, yet the description provides no context on host, user, key_path, or the return value. It is minimally sufficient to understand the tool's core action but woefully incomplete for correct invocation, especially given the absence of annotations.

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 0% and the description only references 'bundle identifier' without explaining the other four parameters (host, user, udid, key_path). The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of required parameters like host and user.

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 (launch) and the resource (installed app) with the specific identifier (bundle identifier), and mentions the underlying command for context. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like sim_install and sim_terminate, though it doesn't explicitly name any alternative. This is clear but not as strong as explicitly differentiating from similar launch 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., app must be installed, simulator booted), or conditions where another tool like sim_open_url would be appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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