MCP Scrcpy Vision

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 the behavioral trait of disconnecting WiFi ADB connections, including the conditional logic based on the 'ipAddress' parameter. However, it lacks details on permissions required, error handling, or side effects (e.g., impact on other connections), which are important for a mutation 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and efficiently explains parameter usage without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's behavior, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 (a mutation with one optional parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic operation and parameter effect, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or prerequisites, which would enhance completeness for safe agent use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'ipAddress' parameter as optional with its purpose. The description adds marginal value by reiterating the optionality and effect (disconnect specific vs. all devices), but does not provide additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema states, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 action ('Disconnects from a WiFi ADB connection') and resource ('WiFi ADB connection'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'android.adb.connectWifi' (which connects) and 'android.adb.enableTcpip' (which enables TCP/IP mode). It precisely defines the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 on when to use the tool based on the optional 'ipAddress' parameter: use with an IP to disconnect a specific device, omit to disconnect all. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. other disconnection methods) or name alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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