connect_wifi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal a non-obvious behavioral trait — that supplying pairing_code/pair_port triggers a pairing step before connecting, with the values sourced from a specific device UI screen. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements, timeouts, retry behavior, or whether pairing persists across connections.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded before the conditional pairing detail. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover safety and result behavior on its own. It handles the complex pairing path well but omits failure modes, whether pairing is one-time, and what a successful or failed connection returns, which leaves an agent under-informed for a network-mutating call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the two least obvious parameters (pairing_code, pair_port) and their origin. It adds nothing about host format (IP vs hostname), port, or what happens when pairing fields are omitted alongside a non-5555 port, leaving roughly half the parameters thinly specified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Connect to a device over Wi-Fi'), which is unambiguous against the sibling set of device-control tools like tap, swipe, and screenshot. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any alternative connection method (e.g., USB), but none exists in the sibling list, so the gap is minor.

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?

Gives a clear conditional: for Android 11+ wireless debugging, pass pairing_code and pair_port to pair first. That is actionable when-to-use guidance tied to a specific platform and flow. No when-not guidance or mention of prerequisites such as same-network reachability.

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