push_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the USB prerequisite and auto-connect default, which is valuable, but omits other behavioral traits such as whether the server persists by default, side effects on existing servers, or the meaning of the persistent parameter. This is useful but incomplete.

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 consists of three short sentences, each adding distinct and relevant information: purpose, prerequisite, and default behavior. There is no fluff, repetition, or irrelevant detail, making it highly efficient.

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?

The tool has four parameters and an output schema, but the description omits any guidance on choosing between this and the sibling push_server variants (onetime/persistent). It also does not clarify the role of the persistent parameter, leaving the agent to infer. The core action is clear, but the sibling ambiguity prevents a higher score.

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 already describes all four boolean parameters with defaults and descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the auto_connect default, which is not enough to raise the score above baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Deploy') and names a concrete resource ('scrcpy server') with its purpose ('for wireless control'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like push_server_onetime or push_server_persistent, so it misses a small opportunity to differentiate, but remains distinct enough.

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 gives a clear prerequisite ('Requires USB first') and a default behavior ('Auto-connects by default'), which helps establish when the tool should be used. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over the sibling variants (onetime vs persistent) or provide explicit exclusions, leaving the agent to infer.

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