connect_wifi

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which describe safety characteristics. The description adds minimal context: it says the tool 'returns the connection address' and mentions it 'Enables WiFi ADB' — implying a state change on the device, which aligns with readOnlyHint=false. No contradiction, but the description doesn't add much beyond what annotations cover regarding side effects on the device's network configuration.

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 a single concise sentence plus a return-value note. It's appropriately brief and front-loaded with the action verb. No wasted words, though it could have been slightly more informative about connection behavior without much cost.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% schema coverage on parameters, the description is reasonably complete for this tool. However, there's no mention of connection timeout behavior, whether the serial defaults to a single device when omitted, or what happens on failure. The tool is relatively simple so this is adequate, but it lacks some behavioral nuance an agent might need (e.g., is serial required if multiple devices are connected?).

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 both parameters (port and serial) are already documented in the schema with descriptions. The description adds implicit meaning by establishing that connection is established via a TCP port and serial number, reinforcing the schema. Since coverage is complete, the baseline is 3, and the description's mention of 'connection address' subtly clarifies the relationship between port and the resulting connection.

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 states 'Enable WiFi ADB and connect to the device wirelessly' with a specific verb (enable/connect) and resource (WiFi ADB connection). It distinguishes from sibling disconnect_wifi clearly, though it doesn't explicitly contrast to avoid confusion with other connection-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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The context implies it's for establishing a wireless ADB connection, but there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., device must be enabled for wireless debugging) or alternatives. It's clear enough from the name and sibling context (disconnect_wifi) but lacks explicit guidance.

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