disconnect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly discloses destructive behavior by stating it will destroy the runtime and clear modules, which is critical for an agent to know before calling. It does not cover side effects like irreversibility or permission requirements, but the core destructive action is clearly stated.

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 sentence that fronts the action (disconnect) and then packs in the two key behavioral details (destroy runtime, clear modules). No filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and resource identification. It lacks fallback or precondition guidance (e.g., calling on a non-existent instance), but given the tool's simplicity and the availability of structured schema, the description is largely sufficient. The absence of annotations means a bit more could be said about error handling, but the core is covered.

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?

Both parameters have complete schema descriptions (deviceId and appId with format details), so schema coverage is 100%. The description refers to them but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb (disconnect) and a precise resource (MobileEasyUse instance) and names the effects (destroy runtime, clear modules). This goes beyond a vague 'disconnect' and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like connect and call_function.

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 usage context is implied: you disconnect an instance you previously connected. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool over alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must be connected first), and no exclusions. The sibling connect is an obvious counterpart but is not referenced.

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