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 clearly indicates this is a read operation (not destructive) and specifies what data is included/excluded (metadata only, no body content). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions that would be helpful for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 (two sentences) with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance about what's excluded and the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place and is front-loaded with essential information.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job of explaining what the tool returns (metadata) and what it doesn't (body content), plus providing clear sibling differentiation. The main gap is the lack of output format details, but given the tool's relative simplicity and the clear behavioral description, this is reasonably complete.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'request_id' well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('单个请求的元数据' meaning 'metadata of a single request'), and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling tool 'traffic_read_body' by noting it excludes request/response body content. This provides precise differentiation from related tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for metadata only) and when to use an alternative ('使用 traffic_read_body 读取' meaning 'use traffic_read_body to read' for body content). It also implies prerequisites by referencing 'request_id' from 'traffic_list', creating clear usage context.

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