Android Tester MCP

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, suggesting a write operation with open-world semantics. The description adds value by specifying 'fresh' (implying new creation) and metadata return, but doesn't detail behavioral traits like permissions, side effects, or rate limits beyond annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome with zero wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 output schema and moderate schema coverage, the description is minimal but adequate for a creation tool. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return values, error handling, or integration with siblings, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 50%, with parameters like 'config' and 'wait' documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but since coverage is moderate, it doesn't fully compensate for gaps, resulting in a baseline score.

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 ('Create') and resource ('Android box'), specifying it returns metadata. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_boxes' or 'get_box' beyond the creation aspect, missing explicit sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description lacks context about prerequisites, use cases, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_boxes' or 'get_box', leaving usage unclear.

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