connect_wifi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states the connection method and prerequisite, but omits success/failure behavior, whether the connection persists, ADB pairing/auth requirements, timeouts, and return value.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a useful parenthetical prerequisite. There is no unnecessary wording or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter connection tool, the description covers purpose, address format, and the key prerequisite. It still lacks failure/return behavior and the relationship to device selection, which matters given no annotations or output schema.

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 has 0% description coverage and only an 'Address' title. The description compensates by giving an example address format (IP:port) and the phone prerequisite, though it does not explain hostnames, IPv6, or default ports.

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 action and target: connect to a phone over Wi-Fi ADB. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as select_device or list_devices, so differentiation is only implicit.

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 the prerequisite that wireless debugging must be on and provides an example address. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus select_device/list_devices or when not to use it.

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