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 scope), and the description adds value by specifying that it's a destructive uninstall operation on an Android box, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't detail potential side effects (e.g., data loss, permissions needed) or response behavior, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance, which is ideal for conciseness.

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 complexity (a destructive mutation with no output schema), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It covers the basic action and parameters, but lacks details on what happens after uninstallation (e.g., success/failure indicators) or error handling, which would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents both parameters (boxId and packageName). The description adds minimal semantic context by mentioning 'by package name,' but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already states. This meets 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 ('uninstall') and target resource ('an app from the Android box'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'install_apk' (opposite action) and 'create_android_box'/'list_boxes' (different resources). It precisely communicates what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 needing to remove an app from an Android box, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'install_apk' for adding apps) or provide context about prerequisites like having the box ID and package name ready. It offers basic context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons.

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