One-shot device setup

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

Given no annotations, the description effectively discloses the bundled operations and the network behavior (default reverse tunnel vs LAN IP). It lacks details on prerequisites and side effects like whether it stops an existing proxy, but overall provides useful behavioral context.

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 concise sentences: the first states the bundled operations, the second explains the default and alternative. No redundant information, 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and key usage context. It lacks mention of return value or prerequisites like adb connectivity, but is sufficient for most use cases.

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 covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions (port, hostIp). The description reinforces hostIp behavior but does not explain the serial parameter. The parameter semantics are partially enriched beyond the schema for hostIp but serial remains undocumented.

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: a one-shot setup that starts a proxy, installs a system CA, and sets the device proxy. It distinguishes from sibling tools like adb_set_proxy, adb_install_cert, and proxy_start by emphasizing the convenience of a single step.

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 the default (adb reverse tunnel for NAT'd emulators) and when to set hostIp (LAN IP alternative). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of individual sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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