Android Tester MCP

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and openWorldHint=true (broad applicability), which the description aligns with by describing a launch action. It adds value by specifying the target ('Android box') and method ('by package name'), though it doesn't detail side effects like app state changes or permissions required.

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 ('Launch an installed application') and includes essential details ('by package name on the Android box') without any redundant or unnecessary 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 the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with two parameters) and annotations covering safety (readOnlyHint=false) and scope (openWorldHint=true), the description is mostly complete. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values or potential errors, leaving a minor gap.

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 parameters 'boxId' and 'packageName' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these are required for the launch operation, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Launch') and resource ('an installed application by package name on the Android box'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'install_apk' (installation) and 'uninstall_apk' (removal). It precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 implies usage when launching an app on an Android box, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'open_live_view' or prerequisites (e.g., app must be installed). It lacks context on exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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