Android Tester MCP

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint: false) and open-world (openWorldHint: true), but the description adds useful context: it handles both local files and URLs, with specific behaviors for each (uploading or downloading). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action and parameter handling, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent to infer behavior.

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 schema fully documents both parameters (boxId and apk). The description adds minimal value beyond this, as it repeats the apk handling details already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Install') and resource ('APK file into the Gbox Android box'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'uninstall_apk' beyond the obvious opposite action, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a box ID from 'list_boxes' or 'get_box'), compare with 'ai_action' for broader automation, or specify scenarios like installing versus opening apps with 'open_app'.

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