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 the tool lists traffic with filtering, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by '列出' but not explicit), potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with large datasets (e.g., pagination). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation and constraints.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: a single sentence that states the core purpose and key features (filtering). There's no wasted text, and it efficiently conveys essential information without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and filtering, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, performance) and doesn't explain return values (no output schema). It's complete enough for a simple list tool but has clear gaps in 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters (limit, filter_domain, filter_type, filter_status, filter_url). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning filtering support but doesn't provide additional semantic context (e.g., how filters combine, default behaviors). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 tool's purpose: '列出捕获的 HTTP/HTTPS 流量' (list captured HTTP/HTTPS traffic). It specifies the resource (traffic) and verb (list), and distinguishes itself from siblings like traffic_clear (clear traffic) and traffic_get_detail (get detailed traffic). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from traffic_search (search traffic), which might have overlapping functionality, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 by mentioning filtering capabilities ('支持按域名、类型、状态码、URL 筛选'), suggesting it's for retrieving filtered traffic data. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like traffic_search (no mention of differences) or traffic_get_detail (no indication of detail vs. list). The context is clear but incomplete for sibling differentiation.

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