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 the return behavior ('Returns the IP address or null if device is not connected to WiFi'), which is crucial for understanding outcomes. It doesn't mention error conditions, permissions, or rate limits, but covers the core behavioral trait of possible null returns.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage context and return behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter and straightforward functionality.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete: it states the purpose, usage context, and return behavior. It could mention error cases or prerequisites more explicitly, but for a simple read operation, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no additional information about the 'serial' parameter's meaning or format. However, since there's only one parameter and it's likely a device identifier, the baseline is 3 as the description doesn't compensate for the schema gap but the simplicity mitigates the impact.

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 ('Gets'), the resource ('device's WiFi IP address'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on IP retrieval rather than connection management (connectWifi/disconnectWifi) or TCP/IP mode enabling (enableTcpip). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 for when to use this tool ('Useful for connecting to the device wirelessly after enabling TCP/IP mode'), which implicitly suggests it should follow android.adb.enableTcpip. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings, though the context makes its role evident.

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