rescue_start_mirror

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does a good job: read_only guarantees no input forwarding or clipboard sync and names the enforcing flags; print_fps is explicitly defined as reporting the actual stream frame rate to stderr/stdout. It does not disclose the default control/clipboard behavior or that this starts a long-running session, which keeps it from a 5.

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 front-loaded with the core function and then organizes parameter-specific behavior into readable blocks. The repeated emphasis on 'official scrcpy' is slightly redundant, but every sentence contributes useful detail.

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 session-starting tool with four parameters and no annotations, the description covers the two boolean parameters well but leaves profile semantics and serial selection unexplained. It also doesn't mention how the started session is stopped or observed, though sibling tools hint at that workflow.

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 richly documents read_only and print_fps. However, it only lists profile's allowed values without explaining their tradeoffs, and serial is not described at all.

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 it starts full-screen mirroring and control in the official scrcpy window, and the read_only mode clarifies a view-only variant. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as rescue_start_otg or observe_screen, 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?

It gives a concrete use case for read_only=True ('if you only want to view the screen without risking accidental input') and notes the ADB/authorized-device prerequisite. It does not state when to prefer this over alternative monitoring tools or when not to use it, but the provided context is clear.

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