proxy_mobile_setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for side-effect disclosure. It does disclose that the tool starts listeners, may inject a CA on an Android device, and emits a script that modifies iptables/sysctl/nmcli. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether the script is executed or merely emitted, and does not mention host sudo requirements or potential persistence of network changes.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core value proposition. The first sentence is dense but organized as a clear enumerated list of actions, and the second sentence adds crucial hardware context that justifies the tool's purpose.

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?

This is a complex 10-parameter orchestration tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description remains high-level. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether the sudo script is executed or merely output for the user, or how it relates to proxy_mobile_teardown for cleanup. An agent invoking this tool would be uncertain about the result and subsequent steps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds workflow-level context that loosely maps to parameters (explicit/transparent listeners, AP iface, CA injection), but it does not add syntax, defaults, or behaviors beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific action ('start explicit + transparent listeners'), an optional CA injection, and a script emission that wires iptables/sysctl/nmcli. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like proxy_start_transparent (transparent-only) and proxy_mobile_teardown (teardown), even without naming them explicitly.

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 clearly implies the intended use case: one-command mobile capture paired with the proxy-ap-card firmware. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, such as proxy_start_transparent for transparent-proxy-only needs.

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