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 discloses that the tool provides information and a guide for installing a CA certificate, which is useful for HTTPS traffic capture. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, or what the output format is. The description adds some context but is incomplete for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage context. Every sentence earns its place by adding value, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and usage context. However, for a tool related to security (CA certificates), it lacks details on output format, potential errors, or prerequisites. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in completeness for this context.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and usage. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary parameter details.

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: '获取 CA 证书信息和安装指南' (Get CA certificate information and installation guide). It specifies the resource (CA certificate) and the action (get information and guide), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'android_get_device_info' or 'proxy_status'.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: '抓取 HTTPS 流量需要在设备上安装此证书' (Capturing HTTPS traffic requires installing this certificate on the device). This implies usage for HTTPS traffic interception setup, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings.

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