connect_device

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 only mentions that connection auto-detects, but does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, establishes a persistent connection, has side effects, or requires prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a 'connect' action.

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 with no filler. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes the most important nuance (auto-detection) without extraneous detail.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a 2-parameter schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what 'connect' entails, how modes differ, success/error conditions, or how it relates to sibling tools like push_server or capture_screen. The agent would lack essential context for correct invocation.

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 50% (only device_id has a description, mode does not). The description's only param-related note ('Auto-detects if no device_id provided') essentially repeats the schema's description for device_id and adds no new meaning. It does not clarify the mode parameter or its enum values.

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 'Connect to a device' with a specific verb and resource, and adds the scope of auto-detection when no device_id is provided. This is clear and distinct from sibling tools like capture_screen or get_device_info, but it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 phrase 'Auto-detects if no device_id provided' gives a hint about when this tool can be used without explicit identification, implying a default behavior. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives or when to use different modes like usb vs wireless.

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