CA path, trust model, and install instructions

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 discloses that the tool reports CA information and can also run adb push when adbPush=true, which modifies the device, while noting this does not apply to TV builds. It clearly separates read-only reporting from the installation side effect.

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 concise despite its length, organized with numbered trust paths and a clear pointer to an alternative tool. Every sentence adds meaningful information, and the structure makes it easy to parse key usage conditions.

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's moderate complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is comprehensive. It covers the tool's output, platform-specific behavior, trust model distinction, and parameter usage, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 single parameter adbPush is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), but the tool description adds contextual meaning by linking it to the device CA install trust path and explicitly excluding TV builds. This goes beyond the schema, aiding correct parameter selection.

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: to report the CA in use, including directory, source, fingerprint, and presence/match of cert.pem/key.pem, along with per-platform instructions. It distinguishes itself from the sibling proxy_health by pointing to proxy_health.caStatus for validation-only checks, making the unique value explicit.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'Use proxy_health.caStatus for the same validity checks without the instructions.' It also provides detailed context for two trust paths and clarifies that adbPush applies only to phones/browsers, not TV/debug builds, preventing misuse.

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