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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('列出所有连接的 Android 设备') but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as what 'connected' means (e.g., USB, network, emulator), whether it requires specific permissions or setup (e.g., ADB enabled), how it handles no devices, or the format of the output (e.g., list of device IDs, names). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 ('列出所有连接的 Android 设备') that directly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy for an agent 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavior, output format, or usage scenarios. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent won't know what to expect from the result (e.g., list structure, error handling). It's adequate for a basic tool but has clear gaps in providing a full operational picture.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters. It correctly implies no inputs are required for listing devices.

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 tool's purpose as '列出所有连接的 Android 设备' (List all connected Android devices), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like android_get_device_info (which gets info for a specific device) and android_clear_proxy/android_setup_proxy (which manage proxy settings). However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from traffic_list (which lists traffic records), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 Android devices connected via ADB), when not to use it (e.g., if you need device-specific details), or direct alternatives like android_get_device_info for individual device info or traffic_list for traffic monitoring. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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