connect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the operation may create or reuse a connection, initializes an Android or iOS SDK runtime, and reports runtime and Release compatibility. It also explicitly frames compatibilityWarning and upgradeRecommendation as non-blocking advisories. It does not describe what happens if a connection already exists for the same deviceId/appId, but it is substantially more transparent than a minimal 'Connects to a device'.

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 two tight sentences that front-load the core create-or-reuse behavior and then add the compatibility-reporting detail. Every clause earns its place, and there is no filler or tautology.

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?

The schema documents all required parameters, an output schema exists to cover return fields, and the description supplies the lifecycle and compatibility context an agent needs. For a connection-establishment tool with this complexity, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

All 6 parameters are fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some contextual meaning by identifying deviceId and appId as the connection identity and platform as the runtime selector, but it does not meaningfully elaborate on ip, port, or runtimePort beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific action ('Create or reuse the connection identified by deviceId and appId'), a concrete resource (the connection and SDK runtime), and the platform scope (Android/iOS). It clearly reads as the setup counterpart to disconnect and is unlikely to be confused with call_function, eval_script, or get_sdk_declarations.

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 implies that this tool establishes or reuses a connection and initializes a runtime, which suggests it should be used before call_function or eval_script and paired with disconnect. However, it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives or mentions exclusions, so the usage guidance is left to inference.

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