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, and it does so well. It explains the scope ('THIS consumer only'), the conditional retention of the TLS-inspecting proxy, device proxy, and DPC CA when other consumers are active, the response's stillRunning field, and the final cleanup actions (killing the proxy, clearing device proxy/CA, discarding buffered flows). This is rich, honest behavioral context.

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 three sentences: the first delivers the primary action and scope, the second explains the conditional state with another consumer, and the third clarifies the final cleanup. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by necessary edge-case detail with no fluff.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavior, side effects, and the important stillRunning response scenario. It does not explicitly describe error cases (e.g., if no capture is active), but given the simplicity of the parameter and the detailed behavioral coverage, it is nearly complete for correct invocation.

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 already covers the single parameter 'serial' with 100% description coverage ('Android device serial (adb serial)'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter itself, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Stop TLS inspection') and a specific resource ('Android device'), and immediately scopes it with 'from THIS (AI) consumer only,' which distinguishes it from any global stop or from sibling tools like android_traffic_start or android_traffic_status. The conditional behavior and response field are also stated, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 clearly implies the tool is used to stop a previously started TLS inspection for this specific consumer, and it explains the multi-consumer nuance, guiding the agent on when the underlying proxy is actually torn down. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over android_traffic_status or mention alternatives, though the name and context make the primary use case obvious.

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