Android Proxy MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what data is retrieved but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 in Chinese that front-loads the key action and details. It wastes no words but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from data types). Overall, it's appropriately sized and clear.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and data retrieved. However, with no annotations and missing behavioral details, it's not fully complete for an agent to use confidently. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in transparency.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'serial' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no extra context on serial format or validation). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('Android 设备的详细信息'), specifying what information is retrieved (model, version, root status). It distinguishes from siblings like android_list_devices (which lists devices) but doesn't explicitly contrast with all tools. The purpose is specific and actionable, though not fully differentiated from all alternatives.

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 detailed device info is needed, and the input schema hints at using serial numbers from android_list_devices. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., traffic tools for network data) or any exclusions. The context is clear but not comprehensive.

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