proxy_mobile_teardown

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

The description discloses key side effects: deactivating Android target, stopping listeners, and emitting a sudo-runnable script that modifies iptables and NetworkManager. Without annotations, this provides good transparency, though it is unclear whether the script is auto-executed or just emitted.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Reverse proxy_mobile_setup') and then enumerates actions concisely. No redundant information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main actions but omits details about return value and idempotency. It is fairly complete for a teardown tool with 6 parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning over the schema; it only indirectly relates to android_target_id and stop_proxy. No new semantic details for ap_iface, ap_subnet, egress_iface, or block_quic.

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 explicitly states 'Reverse proxy_mobile_setup', clearly identifying it as the counterpart to the setup tool. It lists specific actions (deactivate Android target, stop listeners, emit script) that distinguish it from sibling tools like proxy_mobile_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 phrase 'Reverse proxy_mobile_setup' strongly implies it should be used after setup. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity about preconditions.

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