disconnect_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says that a wireless ADB connection is disconnected. It does not explain whether the optional serial selects one device or all, whether disconnection is reversible, what side effects occur, or how failures are reported.

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 entire description is one short Hungarian sentence with no filler, redundant caveats, or irrelevant details. The core action is stated up front and the description is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Although the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description is incomplete for correct invocation because the optional serial parameter is unexplained and no usage context is provided. An agent cannot determine whether the call disconnects a single specified device or the current/all wireless ADB connections.

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% and the description never mentions the 'serial' parameter, so the agent cannot tell how the parameter affects which device is disconnected. The nullable, optional serial with no documented meaning is a significant gap that the description must compensate for but does not.

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 states a specific action ('Vezetek nelkuli ADB kapcsolat bontasa' – terminate wireless ADB connection) with a clear target device. It is more specific than the tool name, adding the wireless ADB scope, and no sibling tool overlaps with this exact function. It does not explicitly contrast with a sibling, so it stops 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?

There is no guidance on when to use the tool, what preconditions must hold, or which alternative to choose. The description merely restates what the tool does rather than instructing an agent on when to invoke it, so the agent is left to infer usage from context.

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