Android MCP

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations, which already indicate idempotent and destructive hints. However, it clarifies the action as waiting for time, which aligns with annotations (idempotent makes sense for timing, destructive might imply blocking). No contradiction exists, and the description provides basic context, earning a solid score given annotations cover key traits.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the core action, using only one sentence with zero waste. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and annotations providing idempotent and destructive hints, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on usage context, parameter units, or behavioral nuances, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'duration', the description doesn't add any details about units (e.g., seconds, milliseconds) or constraints. It mentions 'specific amount of time' but lacks specifics. Baseline is 3 since schema coverage is low, but description doesn't fully compensate, resulting in an adequate but incomplete parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Wait') and resource ('time'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools like 'Notification' or 'Press' that might also involve timing elements, keeping it from a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'Notification' or 'Press' that might involve delays, there's no indication of whether 'Wait' is for general pauses, synchronization, or other specific timing needs in the context of device interactions.

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