interceptor_android_activate

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

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior (requires root, sets up tunnel, optionally proxy). However, it omits details on failure modes, side effects (e.g., system modification), and prerequisites like device connectivity.

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, dense sentence that conveys all key actions and a prerequisite. Every word adds value, with no redundancy.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and one prerequisite. It lacks mention of required serial, return value, or error handling, making it sufficient but not comprehensive.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds a high-level grouping but no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers.

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 defines the tool's action: 'Full Android interception' with specific steps (inject CA cert, set up ADB reverse tunnel, optionally set Wi-Fi proxy). This distinguishes it from siblings like interceptor_android_deactivate and interceptor_android_setup.

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 states a prerequisite ('Proxy must be running') but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as interceptor_android_setup. It lacks explicit context for when activation is appropriate.

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