connect_wifi

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the tool name by explaining the underlying adb connect command, requiring a setup step on the device, and disclosing a significant limitation around pairing. It still does not describe error behavior, return output, or network requirements, but for a simple connection tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the exact command semantics, followed by the necessary prerequisite and caveat. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler.

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 an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, prerequisite, and known limitation. It does not mention whether the device must be on the same network or what happens on failure, but the essentials for using the tool are present.

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% coverage and only provides a generic 'host_port' string with no description. The description compensates by showing the expected format 'adb connect ip:port' and by explaining the host/port value is provided by the Wireless debugging settings. This makes the parameter meaning reasonably clear, though it does not explicitly state that host_port is an IP:port string.

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 clearly states the tool connects over wireless ADB using 'adb connect ip:port', which is a specific verb and resource. It also notes that pairing codes are not covered, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like disconnect_device or network_status, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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 an explicit prerequisite: the phone must have Developer settings > Wireless debugging enabled, and it explains where the address/port comes from. It also clearly states when not to use it: pairing on newer Android versions requires 'adb pair' and is not covered by this tool. It does not name an in-tool alternative, so it is not a full 5.

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