Android MCP

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint: true, which the description doesn't contradict, as 'Press' implies a physical action that could alter device state. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, such as what 'Press' entails (e.g., duration, effect) or any safety considerations, relying heavily on the annotation for critical information.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 destructive hint and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what happens after pressing (e.g., device response, errors) or provide enough context for safe use, making it inadequate for a tool with potential side effects.

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 one parameter 'button' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't explain what 'button' means (e.g., button names, valid values, or examples). This leaves the parameter semantics unclear, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Press') and target ('specific button on the device'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'Click' or 'LongClick', which likely involve similar button interactions, so it's not fully specific about what distinguishes this tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'Click' or 'LongClick'. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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