Android Tester MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation with potentially large result sets. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, mentioning 'all current boxes' which aligns with openWorldHint. No contradictions with annotations exist, but the description doesn't add rich behavioral details like pagination behavior or rate limits.

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, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (6 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. With annotations covering safety and scope, and schema covering parameters, the description provides basic purpose but lacks guidance on usage versus siblings or details about return format. It's complete enough for a basic list operation but could be more helpful.

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%, with all 6 parameters well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. No parameter semantics are explained in the description itself.

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 ('List') and resource ('all current boxes belonging to this API Key'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_box' (which likely retrieves a single box) or 'create_android_box' (which creates rather than lists).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_box' for retrieving a single box or explain that this is for listing multiple boxes with optional filtering. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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