sim_uninstall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool uninstalls an app, but does not mention side effects (e.g., app data removal), permission requirements, or whether the operation is reversible. The lack of any such context makes it minimally transparent, especially for a destructive action.

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, concise sentence with no filler, which is structurally efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise – the brevity is achieved by omitting essential context. It is not front-loaded with any additional guidance beyond the action, so while it has good formatting, it lacks substance.

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 tool with five parameters, three of which are required, and no annotations, this description is profoundly incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of host, user, or key_path, nor does it describe what happens after uninstallation, error conditions, or any dependencies. Even with an output schema present, the agent has no idea how to correctly invoke the tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description adds nothing about the five parameters (host, udid, user, key_path, bundle_id) – their meanings, formats, or relationships are left entirely to the agent's inference from names. The description does not compensate for the absence of schema documentation, making parameter semantics essentially unexplained.

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 'Uninstall an app from a simulator' clearly identifies the action (uninstall) and the target resource (an app on a simulator). It is distinct from the sibling tools like sim_install or sim_launch, though it does not explicitly name them. The meaning is unambiguous and not a mere restatement of the tool name, so it earns a solid score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no context about the simulator environment or host requirements. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when it applies. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters and sibling tools with overlapping domains.

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