MCP Appium Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions stopping recording and getting data, but fails to describe key traits like whether this is a destructive operation (likely yes, as it ends recording), error conditions (e.g., if no recording is active), or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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—a single sentence with zero wasted words—and front-loaded with the core action and outcome. Every word earns its place, 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 complexity of a recording tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits critical context such as prerequisites (e.g., must have an active recording), error handling, return data format, or side effects, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the 'outputPath' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., file format, constraints), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 ('stop recording') and the outcome ('get the recording data'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'start-recording' by indicating the termination of a recording process, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other tools beyond that.

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, prerequisites (e.g., requires a recording to be active), or context. It lacks any mention of dependencies, such as needing to call 'start-recording' first, which is critical for proper usage.

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