ADB Connect to Device

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's lack of side-effect disclosure is partially mitigated. The description adds useful prerequisites and address-format context beyond annotations, but it does not mention failure modes, whether existing connections are replaced, or what happens on success. This is an adequate but not a rich behavioral profile.

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 well-structured with clear sections (core statement, args, examples, prerequisites). The core purpose is front-loaded, and the prerequisites are valuable. The examples are partially redundant with the schema's pattern, but this does not significantly bloat the description. It remains concise and scannable.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description covers the necessary preconditions and address format. It does not specify the return value or success/failure output, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the fact that no output schema exists. An agent has enough information to invoke 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 already covers the sole parameter 'address' with type, pattern, and description, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description repeats this information and adds examples, but does not introduce new semantic details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Connect to an Android device via ADB over network.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like autoglm_list_adb_devices (listing devices) and autoglm_task (running a task) by focusing on establishing a connection. The address format and examples further reinforce the tool's distinct purpose.

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 usage context: this tool is for connecting to a device over the network, and it explicitly lists prerequisites such as ADB debugging enabled, TCP/IP mode enabled, and network reachability. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'when not to use,' but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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