Disable transparent capture

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

The description discloses the behavioral effect of modifying network rules (DNAT removal and flushing), which goes beyond the bare action. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., root access), side effects (e.g., interruption of ongoing captures), or whether the operation is reversible. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with two short sentences that directly state the action. No filler or redundant information; each sentence contributes uniquely to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure), how to verify the operation, or any prerequisites. The parameters are left undocumented in the description, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.

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 description adds no information about the three parameters (port, serial, hostPort). Schema description coverage is only 33% (hostPort has a description), yet the tool description does not explain how these parameters affect the operation, such as specifying which device or port to disable. This leaves the agent without guidance on parameter usage.

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: removing iptables DNAT rules and flushing nat OUTPUT, which directly corresponds to disabling transparent capture. The verb 'Remove' and 'Flushes' specify the operation, and the resource 'iptables DNAT rules' is precise. The title 'Disable transparent capture' is accurately reflected, and the tool is clearly the inverse of adb_enable_transparent.

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 usage is implied by the name and description—use this to disable transparent capture—but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternative tools like adb_setup_transparent or adb_clear_proxy. No when-not or alternative conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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