Enable transparent capture

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: uses iptables DNAT, default loopback via adb reverse tunnel, option for LAN host, requires root, and avoids companion app/VPN dialog. It does not mention potential side effects or limitations of the DNAT approach.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and immediately provides key constraints and options. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the tool's effect, prerequisites (root), default behavior, and two usage paths (loopback vs LAN host). It does not describe response or error states, but that is acceptable for a command-oriented tool.

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?

Schema has 3 parameters with 67% description coverage (port and hostPort have descriptions, serial lacks). The description adds meaning beyond schema: explains default port 8000, and for hostPort clarifies it's for DNAT to a reachable LAN host. It does not explain serial but that is standard.

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: redirect ALL device TCP 80/443 to proxy via iptables DNAT. It uses specific verbs and a distinct resource, distinguishing it from siblings like adb_set_proxy (which only sets system proxy) and adb_disable_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 description explains when to use: to capture traffic from all apps, especially those ignoring system proxy (e.g., VK). It also mentions the root requirement and that Nox/MEmu work out of the box. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternative tools for non-rooted devices.

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