Android Proxy MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important context about limitations ('对部分应用可能无效' - may not work for some apps) and suggests manual configuration as an alternative. However, it doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally (e.g., whether it requires device connection, what happens if proxy fails, or what the response looks like).

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 extremely concise with just two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence adds important caveats and recommendations. Every word earns its place with no wasted text.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It explains what the tool does and adds important limitations, but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error conditions, success indicators, or integration with sibling tools. The completeness is sufficient for basic understanding but leaves gaps for practical implementation.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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: '在 Android 设备上设置 HTTP 代理' (Set up HTTP proxy on Android device). It specifies the verb ('设置' - set up) and resource ('HTTP 代理' - HTTP proxy) with platform context ('Android 设备' - Android device). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'android_clear_proxy' beyond the opposite action.

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 some usage context: '此方式对部分应用可能无效，建议在 Wi-Fi 设置中手动配置' (This method may not work for some apps, it's recommended to configure manually in Wi-Fi settings). This implies limitations and suggests an alternative approach, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'android_clear_proxy' or other proxy-related tools like 'proxy_status'.

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