pair_android_over_wifi

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does add meaningful context: pairing requires an owner-shown code, the endpoint must be currently advertised, and the code is passed via stdin and not persisted. It still omits post-pairing side effects and failure behavior, but the security-sensitive handling is explicitly covered.

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 three short sentences, front-loads the core operation, then adds prerequisite and security handling. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 output schema covers return values, and the description covers the key prerequisite and code handling. However, for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the missing endpoint format and lack of workflow sequencing leave gaps an agent must infer.

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 explain both parameters. It adds useful meaning for pairing_code as a six-digit owner-visible code and for endpoint as an ADB mDNS-advertised TLS pairing service, but it does not specify the endpoint format or give examples.

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 and resource: pairing Android wireless debugging using a six-digit code. It distinguishes itself implicitly from connect_android_over_wifi by focusing on the pairing step and the ADB mDNS TLS pairing prerequisite.

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 states a clear prerequisite: the endpoint must currently be advertised by ADB mDNS as a TLS pairing service. However, it does not explicitly route the agent through discover_wireless_devices first or name connect_android_over_wifi as the follow-up step.

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