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 that the tool returns matching fragments, which is useful context. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loaded, stating the core functionality in the first sentence. The second sentence adds important details about search scope and return format. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. It could be slightly improved by structuring with bullet points for clarity, but it's efficiently written.

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 complexity (6 parameters, search functionality) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and return format but misses behavioral context and usage guidelines. For a search tool, it adequately explains what it does but doesn't fully address how or when to use it effectively, leaving room for improvement in contextual understanding.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It mentions searchable components (e.g., URL, headers) which align with the 'search_in' parameter, but doesn't provide extra context like format examples or constraints. Baseline 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 tool's purpose: '搜索流量内容' (search traffic content). It specifies the searchable components (URL, headers, bodies) and the return format (matching fragments rather than full content). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this search tool from sibling tools like 'traffic_list' or 'traffic_get_detail', which likely serve different purposes in traffic analysis.

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. With sibling tools like 'traffic_list' (likely listing traffic) and 'traffic_get_detail' (likely getting detailed traffic records), there's no indication of how this search function differs or when it's preferred. The description mentions what it does but not the context for its use.

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