Android MCP

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, indicating safe repetition but potential data loss. The description adds minimal context by implying retrieval ('Access'), which aligns with idempotency but contradicts destructiveness slightly, as 'Access' suggests read-only. However, it does not explain what gets destroyed or any rate limits, so it adds little beyond annotations.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core idea, though it could be more specific. There is no unnecessary elaboration, making it appropriately concise.

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 the tool has no output schema and annotations indicate destructive behavior, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Access' entails (e.g., returns a list, triggers an action) or the implications of destructiveness. For a tool with behavioral hints but no output details, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description does not need to compensate for any gaps.

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 states the purpose ('Access the notifications seen on the device'), which is clear but vague. It uses a general verb ('Access') without specifying what type of access (e.g., read, list, retrieve) or the scope (e.g., all notifications, recent ones). It does not distinguish from siblings like 'ListDevices' or 'Snapshot', which are unrelated, but lacks specificity in its own domain.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given siblings like 'ListDevices' or 'Wait', there is no indication of how 'Notification' fits into workflows or when it should be invoked, leaving usage unclear.

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