MCP Scrcpy Vision

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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the prerequisite (USB connection required), the default port setting, the post-enablement workflow (getting IP and connecting wirelessly), and the ability to disconnect USB afterward. It doesn't mention error conditions or permissions, but covers the essential operational context well.

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 perfectly structured and concise: it starts with the core purpose, then lists prerequisites, default values, and follow-up steps in a logical flow. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it easy to understand the tool's role in the debugging workflow.

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 complexity (a device configuration tool with prerequisites and follow-up steps), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an excellent job of providing complete operational context. It explains the entire workflow from USB connection to wireless debugging. A perfect 5 would require mentioning potential errors or security considerations, but this is very comprehensive for practical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema (mentioning 'Default port is 5555' which is also in the schema). It doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage or implications, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Enables TCP/IP mode') on a specific resource ('device for WiFi debugging'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like android.adb.connectWifi (which connects after enabling) and android.adb.getDeviceIp (which gets the IP address). It provides a complete picture of the tool's function beyond just the name/title.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Device must be connected via USB first') and provides clear alternatives for subsequent steps ('use android.adb.getDeviceIp to get the device's IP address, then use android.adb.connectWifi to connect wirelessly'). It also mentions the prerequisite condition and the workflow context effectively.

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