Transparent status

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

The verb 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but with no annotations, the description could disclose more about side effects, authentication needs, or output format. It is adequate but not detailed.

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 sentence with no redundancy, but it is too concise as it omits parameter documentation. It is efficient in structure but incomplete in content.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description lacks details about the parameter and return value, making it insufficient for an agent to use 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 does not mention the single parameter 'serial' despite 0% schema description coverage. The tool cannot be correctly invoked without knowing what 'serial' represents (e.g., device identifier).

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 verb 'Show' and the resource 'device's nat OUTPUT chain (active DNAT redirects)', making the tool's purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like adb_enable_transparent 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like adb_enable_transparent or adb_disable_transparent. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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